TMP B3 A0

ESMT
MASTER’S
THESIS
Developing a multidimensional, equal-

weighted scale of brand equity for the
smartphone segment
Sandro Jordão
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Business Administration at the
European School of Management and Technology
Berlin, 2010
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1881672

1.0 Introduction
This thesis attempts to develop a multidimensional measure of brand equity in the
smartphone segment as a vehicle to address the question: How strong are the top brands
in the consumers’ mind and in the market. The Brand Equity Ten Model (Aaker 1996),
broadly accepted as valid and comprehensive, was employed extensively as the framework
guiding the nomination of the dimensions of the measure. The final measurement includes
the assessment of cognitive and behavioural brand equity captured at the individual
consumer level via an online survey as well as the assessment of market figures.
This chapter unfolds into three sections. The first section overviews the recent
development in the Telecommunications Industry, with emphasis on the development of
products and brands in the smartphone segment. The second section explains the research
objectives in measuring the Brand Equity of smartphones brands and the final section
presents the structure and processes used in the research.
1.1 Recent development

The market of the mobile telecommunication presents remarkable dynamics largely
fuelled by short-life-cycle of products and the emergence of disruptive new technologies,
business models and brands. In this section, we provide an overview of the most recent
international developments in the industry of telecommunication. Moreover, we give an
in-depth analysis of the development of the smartphone segment, emphasising brand
strategy and creation of brand equity.
1.1.1 Technology evolution

The development of telecommunications reflects the interaction of three technological
laws (Venkatraman 2008) 1) Moore’s Laws, formulated by one the co-founder of Intel
Gordon Moore, which states that “The number of transistors incorporated in a chip will
nearly double every 24 months” (Moore 1965); 2) Metcalfe’s Law, attributed to the
engineer Robert Metcalfe, inventor of Ethernet and co-founder of 3COM, which states
that “the value of a network goes up as the square of the number of users” (Shapiro
1998); and 3) Gilder’s Law, proposed by George Gilder, which states that “the total
bandwidth of communication systems triples every twelve months” (Gilder 2000).
In the early days of the Internet, phone modems had an extremely limited bandwidth.
However with the improvement in infrastructural technologies such as DSL, cable modems
and optical fibres the development of Internet continues to support the Gilder’s law. For
2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1881672

example, in July, this year, Verizon, the leading operator company in USA, managed to
deliver 10Gbps thought its state-of-art fibre optic network, called FIOS (Singel 2010).
The 3G development
The mobile applications saw the popularization of the third-generation (3G) mobile
phones, especially due to the availability of wireless data traffic at rates equivalents to
DSL. There will be an estimated of 5.3 billion mobile cellular subscription worldwide and,
out of this number, 940 million are subscriptions of 3G mobile phones (ITU-ICT 2010). The
major drivers for the adoption of 3G have been the availability and affordability of
smartphones, new application and services (especially cloud-computing), and social
networking platforms (ibid.). The mobile network covers 90% of the world population, with
the number of countries supporting 3G technology rising from 95 in 2007 to 143 in 2010
(ibid.).
Asia-pacific and Europe countries dominated the number of subscriptions in the early
adoption of 3G. However, the Japanese market is reaching saturation with penetration
level of 85%. In addition, there is the possibility to have similar scenario in other markets
early-adopter countries (WTDR-ICT 2010). In other developed countries, the mobile
market is increasingly saturated and that the marginal growth from 2009 to 2010 was of
only 1.6%. On the other hand, the developing countries the number of subscription will
continue to improve (ibid.).
In China, the 3G infrastructure became fully operational only in 2009. After the
government licensed three 3G standards, i.e., TD-SCDMA, W-CDMA, and CDMA2000 1x EV-
DO, China could assume the World’s leadership position in number of subscribers at the
latest in 2014 (RNCOS 2010). The Indian Government only concluded the negotiation for 3G
spectrum on May, 2010 “after 34 days and 183 rounds of bidding” (REUTERS 2010). 9
operators shared the spectrum and among them the British Company Vodafone (REUTERS
2010). India and China alone are expected to account for over 300 million mobile
subscriptions in 2010 (Pahwa 2010). In Brazil, 3G services started operating in November,
2007. Today, the number of subscriptions exceeds 16 million, with penetration of about 8%
of the mobile phones (TELECO-ANATEL 2010).
The 4G evolution
A number of countries, including Sweden, Norway and United States, have started offering
4G, also called LTE - Long-Term Evolution, the next generation of mobile networking with
services at even higher broadband speeds (BBC 2009). In an interview with Christoph
3
Peylo, head of the T-Labs, the technical operation unit of Deutsche Telekom, he
mentioned that operators have showed concern that LTE will generate congestion due to
high demand for bandwidth, speed (approximately 43 Mbps) and broad network coverage.
As response, operators may return the usage-based pricing as a way of democratize the
use of the bandwidth (Peylo 2010).
Experts in this field argue that the main drivers for the adoption and increase in consumer
pull for 3G/4G services are the new devices, the location-based services and the social
networking services (ITU 2010). The new 3G/4G-enabling devices such as smartphones and
tablets are extremely attractive and have functionalities similar to PC, especially
regarding capabilities and performance. In addition, they can combine seamlessly private
life, leisure and business activities. The location-based services are often accessed freely,
combining GPS, and camera (especially beneficial for augmented reality applications) and
maps. Currently, the giants Google and Nokia (Navteq) dominate these services.
Social networking services have consolidated their role in the Internet, hence in the
smartphone segment (ITU 2010). According to Morgan Stanley’s report on Internet trends
2010 (Morgan Stanley 2010), 40% of mobile browser users have engaged in social
networking activities. This position is only surpassed by search activities, which accounts
for 46%.
The same report (ibid.) highlights the potential for cloud-computing, which Morgan
Stanley coined The Unified Digital Locker. It categorizes the services in the category of
user-generated content (music, video and photos in the cloud), led by Facebook, and of
professional content (apps/documents and shopping in the cloud), led by Amazon and
Apple ITunes.
1.2 Business models
1.2.1 Apple and IPhone

Apart from the remarkable changes in the service technology, the Telecommunications
Industry has experienced the emergence of a series of disruptive business models. The
most remarkable is the strategic expansion of Apple from the entertainment segment with
IPod to that of smartphones. Apple achieved that with the launch of IPhone in June, 2007,
which was preceded by a significant promotional campaign in various media, flaunting the
innovation and convenience of integrating many of the electronic devices uses into a
single object (Apple 2007).
4
Apple also reinforced the IPhone’s adoption and the network effect by allowing developers
to create and sell iPhone applications via the App Store (Apple Developer 2010). Currently,
the number of applications for this platform reached over 250 thousand, which
materialized the IPhone’s motto: “Apps for everything” (Apple iPhone 2010).
IPhone positioning as a brand and product has been always to be perceived as a high-end
and exclusive, especially targeted to jet-setters and wealthy young people between the
ages of 20 and 35 (Malley 2007). Through its marketing campaigns, iPhone positioned itself
as a product that goes beyond the functional benefits. The brand iPhone also delivers the
emotional and self-expression benefits. This clear positioning and strong consumer pull
threatened the incumbent smartphone OEMs.
The position was also fundamental to Apple in the negotiation of exclusive and
advantageous contracts with large national carries/operators. For example, Apple
partnered with T&T in USA and with T-Mobile in Germany. Apple also used the perception
of scarcity to charge $599 per phone and make consumers wait the product for months
(Dalrymple 2007). However, another giant tech company, Google, had rather different
plans. Instead of charging high prices for a smartphone OS and restricting distribution to
exclusive partners, Google decided to offer it for free and open to all market players
(Google 2007).
1.2.2 Google and Android

Google publicly launched the Android OS, the first open platform for mobile services, in
November 2007, in collaboration with companies in the OHA – Open Handset Alliance. The
announcement was followed by the $10-million Android Developer Challenge which
intended to attract application developers and reinforce the network effect (Google Code
2008).
Nevertheless, the critical question is: which opportunities Google saw in Android and
which strategies Google used to break the status-quo imposed by the big competitors of
the telecom industry on the mobile operating systems?
Opportunities:
The introduction of iPhone in the smartphone segment catalysed the trend for mobile
devices that could seamlessly integrate business and entertaining activities and that could
satisfy the increasingly demand for data exchange though a ubiquitous, fast, wireless
access. Advances in the hardware for smartphones had considerably reduced the barriers
to enter, although the operating systems provided by giants such as Nokia and Microsoft
5
did not match the IPhone’s IOS in terms of popularity (Morgan Stanley 2010). In addition,
the dominance of a single platform, Apple, was seriously threatening for the revenues and
strategic freedom of most operators and distributors, therefore, Android could be a
suitable alternative to address all these points and reduce the bargaining power of Apple
in the value-chain.
Penetration strategy:
In order to continue growing, Android is determined to continue position itself as an OS

that delivers superior user-experience, unparalleled cloud-computing services (Android
Developer 2010). Finally, Android’s open-architecture and free distribution is especially
attractive to developers, OEMs, operators, small businesses and other players in the value-
chain willing to reduce operational and licensing costs as well as to customize the OS to
address particular local needs or strategic directions. Android’s creators believe that
because the OS is a device independent, it could potentially run on any electronic device,
expanding its usage beyond smartphones (Android Developer 2010).
Another important point for the consumer adoption of Android is the support of the
application developers and the Open Handset Alliance. One of the key successful factors
of an entrant mobile OS is its ability to mobilize the developers’ communities in order to
meet, or even over-supply, the demand of the end-users for variety and quality of
applications. In many cases, if the technology generates enough consumer pull, it can
become a standard, as for instance the case of Betamax versus VHS (Wielage 1988).
Future Challenges:
Despite the staggering growth of market share and units sold growth, 29.6% and over 260
thousand, respectively (Morgan Stanley 2010), Android still has to prove that it is a mature
technology and that it can grow sustainably. A recent report (Menn 2010) on the Financial
Times entitled “Android faces critical security study” reveals that Android has 88 high-risk
defects. “Problems at the kernel are finitely worth worrying about”, warned Chris
Wysopal, CIO of Veracode, a company specialised in smartphone application. In addition,
the fact that the platform is open source further increases the security concerns.
Open source and free distribution of the Android OS are also creating an undesirable by-
product, which is the fragmentation the OS and the brand due to the increasing number of
Android versions in the market (Android Fragmentation 2010). Fragmentation of the
operating system and its management are yet other strategic risks. Moreover, Google’s
fast innovation pace is yielding more versions of the OS than its partners in the value chain
6
can handle. Indeed, one of the weakest points of the chain is the small software
companies which are required to develop different application for different versions and
maintain the legacy of former applications. This dynamic could motivate these small
software companies to migrate to other more focused platforms, such IPhone (IOS),
BlackBerry (RIM) and Nokia (Symbian). Another negative aspect of fragmentation is the
loose quality management of the apps available at the Android App Store. Currently,
neither Google nor any other company are globally certifying applications, although some
local operators, such as Maxis in Malaysia (Wathan 2010) and Claro in Brazil (Guedes 2010),
certify their own commercial apps.
1.3 The research objectives

As we discussed above, the smartphone phone segment is extremely dynamic. The survival
of a company in this sector is intrinsically correlated to its competitive abilities in creating
strong brand awareness and loyalty. Aaker put forward that a strong brand is instrumental
to manage true innovation, while blocking or inhibiting the adoption of new technologies
introduced by competitors (Aaker 1996).
This research attempts to address the measurement of brand equity in the smartphone
segment as a way to assess their strength and positioning. Furthermore, the underpinning
construct of the dimensions and weights are developed so that the results are comparable
across product classes and markets. More specifically, we aim to achieve the following
objectives:
• Evaluate different theories to measure brand equity across product classes and
markets and select the most appropriate for the context of smartphone segment.
• Applying empirically the selected Brand Equity theory (Aaker’, using a survey at the
individual consumer level.
• Select one dimension (Satisfaction/Loyalty) and determine the key internal drivers of
that dimension. Notice that, in this case, the analysis will consider specific aspects of
the smartphone brands/products and, therefore, will not be used in the calculation of
brand equity. Instead, this analysis will be used as an opportunity to generate product-
dependent insights, which could be valuable for students and professionals.
• Compare two ranking approaches for brand equity.
• Present recommendations to improve the brand positioning, in particular Android OS,
which was the major subject of group project
Motivations:
7
• Contribute with an innovative (perhaps unprecedented) study of Brand equity for
smartphones, in particular for the Android brand.
• Provide marketing professionals and students with a reliable and parsimonious

quantitative approach as an alternative to the qualitative approach to brand
assessment.
• Use a consolidated quantitative theory that can be employed universally across
product class and markets.
• Define a systematic approach to track brand equity along the time
1.4 Structure of the research

The research starts with a literature review of the relevant academic studies on brand and
brand equity. Chapter 2.1 explores the definition of brand and its effects such as product-
related, price-related, communication-related and channel-related effects. Chapter 2.2
summarizes the definitions of brand equity, the theoretical approaches and the most
recognized methods for brand equity measurement. Chapter 2.3 explains the selection of
the Aaker’s Brand Equity Ten Model among the other models presented. The chapter also
explains in details the meaning and usage of every single dimension of the Brand Equity
Ten Model. Chapter 3 explains the research setup, the survey design decisions used to
mitigate possible biases. Furthermore, it discusses the statistical methods and value
ranges utilized in the calculation, as well as the data validation. Finally, Chapter 4
analyses in detail the results of the statistical analysis, whereas chapter 5 concludes with
a discussion of the findings that are relevant for professionals and students in the area of
brand development.
8
2.0 Literature review
In this section, we discuss the literature review on brand and brand equity
Measurement. We also explore well-established models of brand equity measure.
We argue in favour of the Brand Equity Model and describe it in details. Further,
we examine how the selected model can be applied in the context of brands in the
smartphone segment.
2.1 Brand definitions and functions

The modern idea of brand took place in the early 19th century with the introduction of
trademark and differentiated packaging, which had the purpose to leverage buyers’
perception about the quality and authenticity of the products (Fullerton 1988; McCrum
2000). In 1960, the dictionary of the American Marketing Association1 (AMA 1995) stated
Brand as the following:
“A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies

one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. The
legal term for brand is trademark. A brand may identify one item, a
family of items, or all items of that seller. If used for the firm as a
whole, the preferred term is trade name.”
Contemporary researchers define brand in different terms. Feldwick (1996) provided a

cognitive approach and defines brand as “a collection of perceptions in the mind of
consumers”, whereas Grant (2006) defined it in terms of commercialization as “… the sum
of the great ideas used to build that brand”. The Interbrand Group (1992), to some
extend, combined the concepts above to outline brand as “in effect a trademark which,
through careful management, skilful promotion and wide use comes in the minds of
consumers to embrace a particular and appealing set of values and attributes, both
tangible and intangible”. Finally, Wood (2010) grouped the 22 most relevant brand
definitions into two mutually exclusive groups, i.e., one that puts “emphasis on brand
benefits to the consumer” and the other that puts “emphasis on brand benefits to the
consumer”.
1
American Marketing Association converted the 1960 print version of the dictionary to an Internet version in
1995. The reference points to this source.
9
In practical terms, a brand is the usage of a name, a logo or an image to represent the
attributes of a product (consumer or industrial), service, person or place. However, many
managers prefer to view a brand only from the moment when it has generated a relatively
high degree of awareness among consumers. This perception is to some extent similar to
the definitions of a successful brand (Tuominen 1999), the big “b” Brand (Keller 2002) and
strong brand (Aaker 1996).
Brand functions
The branding literature has indicated many ways in which brand perceptions affect
consumers’ behaviour. Keller, Hoeffler and Yoo (2000) researched the positive effects
that a big “b” Brand has not only upon the macro brand level (market leadership, market
share, increase of shareholder value) but also upon the micro brand level (consumer
awareness, preference and loyalty). Their investigation also included the following
effects:
• Product-related effects: Brand name is positively correlated to purchase intention,

buying frequency (attitudinal loyalty), and consumer’s product perceptions of quality.
This trend is particularly accentuated in conditions in which consumers are requested
to evaluate products classified as “difficult-to-assess” and when consumers are willing
to mitigate the risks of potential negative trial experience.
• Price-related effects: Brand leaders can command price premium and enjoy
relatively immune position in price competition with smaller market share brands. For
instance, Gregory (2007) showed that, in the B2B segment, corporate brand is
responsible for, on average, 7% of stock performance, varying from 0.5% for
new/unmanaged brands to 20% for leading brands such as FEDEX. Advertising also
occupies a pivotal place in reducing price elasticity.
• Communication-related effects: The so-called halo effect of a success brand over a

new brand is a well-known marketing phenomenon. For instance, in the 2010
presidential election in Brazil the president at the time, Mr Lula Da Silva, one of
Brazil’s most popular presidents, used his “brand/image” to support and define the
elections for Ms. Dilma Rousseff, an unknown figure in the political scenario (Rathbone
2010). Studies (Chattopadyay 1990) have also revealed that sense of humour in ads is
more effective for already well-known brands than for unknown. They also show that
10
consumers tolerated more repetition of ads from well-know brand than of those
unknown brands.
• Channel-related effects: Finally, brands from top companies are more likely to obtain
acceptance in the market and shelf space because stores may perceive the brands as
having a superior quality, hence, more likely to sell.
2.2 Theoretical approaches and Methods for brand equity

measurement
2.2.1 What is brand equity?

David Aaker (1996) defined brand equity as:
“A set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brand’s name and symbol that
adds to (or subtracts from) the values provided by product or service to a
firm and/or that firm’s customers.”
Extending that definition, while keeping the dimensions of importance related to

consumers and firm, Kevin Keller (2002) describes brand equity as:
“The added value endowed on products and services, reflected in how

consumers think, feel, and act with respect to the brand, as well as in the
prices, market share, and profitability the brand commands for the firm.”
2.2.2 Theoretical approaches for brand equity assessment

Keller (2002) explains that essentially three approaches emerge in the academic literature
regarding conceptualization and definition of brand equity:
Psychology-based approaches: The theoretical frameworks are delineated from the

perspective of cognitive psychology, in which brand is defined as a node in the consumer’s
memory connected to a series of cognitive associations that vary in strength (see figure 1).
In this group of approach, the two most well-established models are the Aaker’s model
(Aaker 1991), with an emphasis on managerial and corporate strategy and the Keller’s
model (Keller & Lehmann, 2001), with a focus on consumer behaviour and on the
differential effects of the so-called consumer-based brand equity. Despite the different
emphasis, both methods rely to some extent on “spreading activation processes from an
associative network model of memory” (Keller 2002).
11
2
Table 1: A metal network map
Economic-based approaches: In the literature, many works are the result of psychology-
based approaches, although, some authors took a different angle and developed models
based on formal theory in information economics. One of the most relevant frameworks
was put forward by Erdem and Swait (1998) which uses signalling theory to explain how
brand equity is created and how evolves over time. This framework is particular useful
when it is applied on setting involving the effects of brand credibility on consumer price
sensitivity.
Biological- and sociology-based approaches: Some researchers have based their

investigation of branding by trying to tap into the subconscious of the consumers, hence,
capturing their experience with the brand and its sensorial and imaginary associations.
The Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET) explores both conscious and
especially unconscious thoughts by analysing the consumers’ non-literal or metaphoric
constructs.
2
Adapted from (Aaker, 1996, page 94)
12
2.2.3 Methods for brand measuring
Many models have been created to address quantitatively the strength of a brand not only
within its own category but also across product/services and markets. Below, we
summarize the main models that Aaker (Aaker 1996) used as a reference to create the
Brand Equity Ten Model, which is described into detail in the next chapter. While
analysing this models, or “efforts”, Aaker focused on the importance of each measure and
their rational as well as the derived insights and hypothesis. He highlighted that embracing
a perspective of multiple product categories and markets can result in significant practical
value; among them, the ability to benchmark a given brand against the best ones within
and across categories, the opportunity to generate insights into brand building and finally
a tool to manage a brand portfolio.
Keller’s Model
Keller and Lehmann (2001) defined brand equity measuring as a series of three
consecutive steps which include 1) investigating marketing effects on consumer/customer
brand knowledge and loyalty (micro brand), 2) the impact that this awareness has over the
market performance (macro brand) and 3) finally how this market performance creates
shareholder value. For each step, other models are taken into consideration. For
example, researchers have used Markov model to explore the implications of brand name
recall.
Figure 1: Steps of the Keller's Brand Equity Model
Aaker’s Model
Aaker’s approach (Aaker 1991) to measuring brand equity as a set of assets, underpinned
around five major assets categories: 1) Brand name awareness, 2) Brand loyalty 3)
Perceived quality, 4) Brand associations and 5) other proprietary brand assets. He puts
forward that each of these categories creates value for the firm and the consumer of the
“brand” in different ways (18 ways are listed in the original model), and, therefore, each
one must be managed and measured in order to match the objective designed (see
Appendix I for the full model).
Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator

The Brand Asset Valuator – BAV (Young & Rubicam 1995) is a framework that measures
consumer perception of a brand in four pillars or scales: 1) Uniqueness/Differentiation
(relates to margins of loyalty and cultural currency), 2) Appropriateness/Relevance
(relates to market penetration), 3) Likeability/Esteem (relates to perception of quality
13
and respect) and 4) Awareness/Knowledge (relates to consumer experience). The scales 1
and 2 are multiplied to define the concept of Brand Strength/Momentum and the
multiplication of the scales 3 and 4 defines the concept of Brand Stature/Credibility.
Currently, the BAV database is the world’s largest database on brand, containing data of
over 44,000 brands, across 51 countries, and responses of over 714 thousand consumers.
Figure 2: the Y&R Model of Brand Dynamics
Strength
Stature
Harris Interactive’s EquiTrend

Equitrend (Harris Interactive 1995) is a framework created by the company Harris
Interactive. In comparison to the above methods, it is much more parsimonious as it
encompasses the measurement of four equity assets Equity (Familiarity, Quality, and
Purchase Consideration), Connection (Emotional Connection, Aspirational Fit),
Commitment and Energy. These points of measurement could be juxtaposed with other
specific measurements and derive further insights of a given brand. Examples of this
combination are behaviour, advocacy and trust.
2.3 The Brand Equity Ten: Towards a single measurement

For the empirical research, we adopted the brand equity framework Brand Equity Te
developed by Aaker (1996) for the following reasons. First, the framework possesses the
credibility drawn from empirical evidences and track record for explaining how brand
equity, across products and markets, is created and measured over time and how it can be
managed. Second, by analyzing more measuring points (10 in a total) the framework offers
a more comprehensive approach to brand measuring than the models presented above. It
many ways it compiles the communalities and particularities of each model under a single
umbrella. Third, Brand Equity Ten addresses the challenge of developing credible and
sensitive measures that can be employed in the long-term strategy of brand positioning, as
opposed to short-term, financial measures such as ROA, sales figures and cost analysis.
14
2.3.1 The Brand Equity Ten
The ten nominated measures are grouped into five categories, of which the first four
represents the dimension of information captured from the customer’s perception of the
brand. The last category translates the information captured from the market behaviour.
Customer
Perceptions
Market
information
Figure 3: Aaker's Brand Equity Ten Model
Loyalty measures
Loyalty measures are at the heart of the brand equity because a loyal customer-base lifts
the barrier to enter, commands price premium and serves as a temporary shield against
competitors’ innovative products. In fact, in some models this measure alone is sufficient
to evaluate brand equity (WMB & Associates 2003).
1. Price Premium: it is the extra amount of money a customer is willing to pay for the
brand in comparison with another brand that is commercializing similar product or a
product with fewer benefits. The price premium can be high, low or even negative,
depending on the two brands used in the comparison. The price premium measure
must be defined among a comparable set of competitors within the same segment. The
techniques used to evaluate this measure includes simply asking, for example, “how
15
much more would you pay for to be able to buy an iPhone instead of a Nokia
smartphone” or even more complex techniques such as conjoint analysis. It is
important to notice that distribution channels may curb the price premium from
affecting the brand’s price in the market.
2. Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty: Satisfaction is a direct measure of the degree to which

customers/consumers are willing to stick to the brand. A direct measure of satisfaction
should be applied only to existing customers. The time frame of measurement can be a
reference to the last usage or a composite resulting of many usages. Moreover,
Satisfaction can be measured in terms of the degree of loyalty by asking customers
questions such as “are you loyal to this brand?” or “would you switch to another brand
if Brand X is not available?”. For the loyalty measure, the percentage of customers
who are loyal to a brand can be a relevant statistic.
Perceived quality and leadership measures
3. Perceived quality: This measure is fundamental for brand equity. Studies from the
Profit Impact of Market Strategy (PMIS) of the Strategic Planning Institute, a joint
effort of Harvard Business School and GE which measures the relationship between
business actions and business results, has demonstrated that perceived quality is one
of the most significant contributor to a company’s ROI, even above marketing, market
share or R&D (Jacobson 1987). Perceived quality is also important because it can be
used across products and markets. Service driven companies, such as banks and
entertainment studios, may have a different definition of high-quality than those in
the smartphone handset manufacture industry. However, studying the relative
difference between the scores has a strong meaning.
4. Leadership and popularity: The Perceived Quality measure may not be equipped to
capture changes in consumer attitude caused by the introduction of competitors’
innovation. Thus, it is necessary to add another dimension, the Leadership measure, to
the construct of perceived quality, which equates for the market dynamics. Leadership
can be understood from three dimensions: 1) number-one syndrome, i.e., if the brand
is the market leader, it is because other consumers have found a compelling reason to
purchase it; 2) Most of consumers feel uneasy to go against the crowd, therefore, they
tend to purchase popular and trendy products; 3) Finally, consumers find important
that the brand is progressing and involving technologically.
16
The Young and Rubican’s Brand Asset Valuator Model combines the concept of leadership
perception with the measure of perceived quality to result in the construct called Esteem.
Associations/Differentiation measures
The association aspect of brand equity is one of the most challenging to translate into a
single measure, not only because it involves assessment of image dimension (logo, value
proposition, etc), which are highly specific to a given brand, but also because of the
problems to measure it across products and markets. In order to address these problems,
Aaker (1993) proposed to evaluate the brand’s core and extended identity from three
angles: The value proposition (brand-as-a-product), the brand personality (brand-as-
person) and the organizational association of the brand (brand-as-organization).
5. Value proposition: This measure summarizes the motivations of a consumer to buy a

product or service of a brand X over other similar. This occurs because the consumer
perceives the Brand X as having a higher value-added. In fact, if the brand does not
generate value, it becomes an easy target of competition. Usually, value proposition is
closed related to the product’s functional benefits and practical utility, which makes
the task of comparing distinct product classes unviable; however, a generic indicator
can be used if the measurement is focused on the value added instead. In this
empirical research, for each smartphone we formulated the question: “is your <brand
of smartphone> a good value for the money?
6. Brand personality: In some product classes, the brand personality goes beyond the
functional benefits by leveraging on the emotional and self-expressive benefits. This is
fundamental to consolidate the differentiation component of the brand. In certain
social settings, the brand of certain watches, bags, clothes, shoes and even jewellery
are perceived as a surrogate for the owner’s salary and status. In environments with
these values, carrying strong brands can make a difference whether one is accepted
within the group.
A brand personality can also be defined as a set of characteristics usually associated to

human beings. For example, the Limbic Model (Group Nyphenburg 2003) is “based on
an approach which links the latest knowledge of neuroscience, psychology and
evolution biology to empirical consumer research”. It positions a brand according to
its association with the consumer motives, wishes and values. The Limbic Map (figure
5) is one of the key artefacts of the Limbic Model and groups the nominated
17
characteristics into Dominance (power, price, assertion, etc), Stimulant (adventure,
pleasure, curious) and Balance (safety, nostalgia).
However, for the objective of measuring brand personality across products and for
tracking purposes, having too many items may prove cumbersome. Thus, it is necessary
to find a unique measure/question that translates the existence of a strong
personality. An alternative scale could be “I have a clear image of the type of person
who would use the brand X”. This question addresses both user imagery and brand
heritage dimensions, which are usually relevant in assessing brand identity.
Figure 4: Limbic map (Group Nyphenburg 2003)
7. Organizational associations: The third dimension of brand identity is the brand-as-

organization. This measure is particularly relevant in contexts in which the
organization is visible or a corporate brand is supporting many extended brands. In
order to measure the brand-as-organization effect (positive and negative), one may
use scales such as “I admire the brand X’s organization” or “I would be proud to do
business with the brand X’s organization”.
Awareness Measures
8. Brand awareness: Brand awareness can be compared to a “box” in the consumer’s

mind. For example, as information about the Android smartphones is received, a
consumer will store it in the box labelled Android OS or Android Logo. With time, the
18
precise functional benefits might not be consciously retrievable, but the consumer
knows whether the box is the room it stored, i.e., positive side (equity) or negative
(liability).
As we discussed in the previous section, brand awareness affects consumers’ attitudes and
perceptions in many ways. In order to capture that diversity, the model needs to cater for
measuring awareness from different dimensions and importance of awareness level.
Below, it is the list of measures in order of importance (see figure 6):
a) Brand Dominance (the only brand remembered):
This is the highest awareness level, when most of the consumers can only provide a
single brand name within a given product class. For example, Durex (a Brazilian brand
of adhesive tape by 3M – do not mistake with the international condom brand), Xerox
and to a certain extent Intel’s chip. Paradoxically, these brands can become victims of
their own success, if their brand names become a synonym for the product itself, thus,
diluting the differentiation factor. In Brazil Durex and Xerox became a verb.
b) Top of the Mind (The first brand that comes in the consumer’s mind)
c) Brand Recall (The brands names a consumer is able to remember unaided)
d) Brand Recognition (Aided recall):
It refers to recognition levels acquired from past exposure to the name, imagery (logo,
colour, motto, etc). It does not involve remembering why and in what a certain brand
is different from others, but simply recognize the past exposure to the brand.
e) Brand Familiarity (Degree at which the brand is familiar to the consumer)
Figure 5: Levels of memory recall (based on Gupta 2009, 7)
Memory
Y&G and Jim William proposed an insightful relationship between Recognition and Recall
named “The Graveyard Model” (Aaker 1996, 12). In this model, the two constructs are
measured and plotted against each other as showed in the figure below. They found out
19
that brands, across product classes, tend to follow the green, curved line, with the
exception of two cases: 1) Niche brands that have low recognition to a broad consumer
base but have high recall among loyal customer group. In this case, low recognition in
itself is not a sign of poor performance; 2) Graveyard position is for brands with a high
level of recognition but low recall. To be in this position can be fatal, for customers are
familiar with the brand but they do not recall it at the time of purchase. The conclusion is
that having a high level of recognition does not indicate a strong brand performance.
Figure 6: Graveyard Model (Aaaker 1996, 15)
High
Graveyard Brand
Recognition
Niche Brand
Low
Low Recall High
Market behaviour measures
9. Market share
The market share often provides a valid surrogate indicator for how strong a brand is
among consumers. When this positioning is stronger than that of other competitors, the
brand should increase or at least maintain its market share. Conversely, competition’s
increase in brand equity should be reflected in a larger market share. This measure has
the advantage to be both available and accurate, especially for company insiders,
although the task of getting comparable data from the competition could be challenging.
The disadvantage is that, very often, market share reflects the response to short-term
strategies, such as promotions and sales that can jeopardize the long-term brand equity as
well as invalidate an accurate tracking measure/procedure.
20
9. Market price and distribution coverage
As discussed above, the market share measure can become seriously misleading, if the
fluctuations are a result of a short term action, therefore, it is crucial to measure the
relative market price of the product. We can obtain that by:
Where P is the price of each product of the brand and K the is price of all brands
Market share is also very responsive to quality and coverage of the distribution channels.
The acquisition or lost of a prominent distribution/sales point may cause serious impact on
the sales revenue, not to mention the effects of changing the shop location. For example,
some brands such as Zara and Starbucks have location as a key component in their strategy
of brand equity building, because, if well-place in popular streets, the stores develop
brand awareness and consequently reduce the expenditure with marketing. Following this
example, many German phone operators, including Vodafone, T-Mobile, O2 and e-plus,
have their shops in prominent streets, creating high visibility for their brand and products.
Therefore, another relevant measure for brand strength is the distribution coverage which
can be either measured by “The percentage of the outlets providing the brand” or “The
percentage of consumers with access to the brand”.
Discussion on the calculation of a single BE measure and brands
The measurement the Brand Equity Ten can potentially use a dozen of questions, as we
explain above and observed in the empirical application of the model (Chapter 3).
Therefore, for tracking and reporting purposes is crucial to have a single summary
measure.
The major issues on developing a single measure are:
1) Define how many measures will be used for each market context or product class. For
example, are 2 measures enough to assess brand awareness? This kind of question
requires experience and clear judgement of the expected outputs. In this research,
respondents answered 4 questions that complemented each other to assess recall and
recognition perceptions.
2) Define how the weights will be distributed in the computation of the overall mean.
Aaker (1996) states that the weights are not as critical as one might expect. He affirms
21
that having all dimensions with the same weight is a reasonable default decision.
However, (Yoo 2001) defined the so-called higher-order, multidimensional
measurement model, which defines different weight for each dimension in relation to
the final brand equity measure, using a complex statistical models. In addition, (Young
& Rubicam 1995) multiply groups of dimensions to produce derived constructs. In this
thesis, we will apply the default weighting approach proposed by Aaker.
3) Define which competitors will form the set for the comparative analysis. In this thesis,
we selected Android, BlackBerry, iPhone, Nokia and Windows Mobile brands because of
their similar commercialization strategy, although the brands do not reflect the same
underling product class. For example, Android and Windows Mobile are operating
systems (software), whereas iPhone and BlackBerry are integrated products, i.e.,
handset plus software combined. However, grouping Android OS, Nokia’s Symbian OS
and Apple’s iOS would not be a fair comparison, as the latter two brands are not
commercialized/marketed in the same fashion.
22
3.0 Research setup
3.1 Research setup and implementation

In order to capture the consumer perception of smartphone, which is related to the first 8
dimensions of the Brand Equity Ten Model, we developed and conducted an online survey
using Qualtrics, the industry-leading provider of online Survey Software solutions. Online
survey was chosen, as opposed to paper survey, because it offers a reliable and fast
solution to reach remote respondents. Among, other features, Qualtrics offers automatic
generation of basic statistics, charts as well as management of response flow based on the
respondents’ answers. The latter was particularly useful to separate the smartphone users
according to their smartphone brand.
Survey preparation, test and distribution

Figure 7: Validation methodology
Phase 1: Develop an online prototype of the survey in Qualtrics.
Phase 2: Review of a paper version of the online survey by ESMT Professors, and
implementation of the requested amendments.
Phase 3: Test the online survey by four ESMT MBA students in order to verify the accuracy
of flow, clarity of questions, answers and auxiliary information, and benchmark the time
necessary to finish.
Phase 4: Launch the survey via email request to ESMT students, alumni (MBA and EMBA),
professors and staff.
Phase 5: Distribute the survey via email request to my acquaintances and friends. The
email message kindly requested to forward the survey to other friends, acquaintances or
any smartphone users.
Phase 6: Diversify the data variance and quantity of entries by distributing the online
survey via the Amazon web service called Mechanical Turk – “a web service that enables
companies to access work that requires human intelligence” (Amazon 2010). Valid answers
are rewarded with some economical incentives. In Qualtrics, we created two extra copies
of the survey, with one collecting data from Android OS smartphone users and the other
from Windows OS. An economical incentive was given for each valid answer. These two
23
extra set of responses could be potentially bias, especially regarding brand awareness,
thus, we avoided aggregating the data across the survey with those from the responses
captured in the Phase 4 and 5. The responses from the extra set were only aggregated in
the questions targeted to specific smartphone users (see more detail below).
3.2 The survey

Although the survey was entirely developed taking into consideration the Brand Equity
Ten Model, the sequence of the questions did not follow the order in which the
dimensions were put forward in the Model. We deliberately changed the sequence to
avoid induced answers. For example, recall questions in Section 1 – Brand Awareness (8)
need to come before the respondent has any exposure to the smartphone brand names or
images. The questions requiring more comparative efforts were placed in the beginning
of the survey, as respondents tend to be more receptive to answer.
Each of the dimensions of the Brand Equity can be conducted in a more detailed way;
however, having a lengthy survey could prove unwieldy and inconvenient for the
respondents. In the design phase, we considered the survey length and reduced some
questions without compromising the theoretical model. The survey consists of 81
questions, the first 21 is answered by all respondents, then the survey is branched by
brand and the respondents continue for 12 questions, summing 33 questions per survey.
Results of the 12 questions are totally comparable but the questions had to be
differentiated in order to address product specificities, such as the name of the
application store.
In some questions, in addition to the 5-1 scale options, we also added the option “I do
not know this product”. This default option is necessary to avoid strategic bias, because
the respondents might give a false low score in response to a lack of past exposure to the
brand. This option also provides robust statistics on level of brand awareness.
Furthermore, we organized the questions numbers and section names according to the
Brand Equity Ten model. For example, in the Brand Awareness (8) questions are
numbered as 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4, where the first number is a direct reference to the
EIGTH dimension the Brand Equity model, and the second number is a sub-level measure,
i.e., brand recall (top of the mind), brand recall (extended brands), brand recognition
(unaided) and brand recognition (aided). This numbering nomenclature slightly changes
after the survey gets branched by specific users of smartphones, and the initial letter of
each brand is added at the end of the number, “A” for Android, “B” for BlackBerry and so
24
forth. The demographic and psychographic questions start with “PQ” and follow an
independent numbering order.
Introduction: Welcome and smartphone definition
The first section of the survey brings an introductory note with the motivation, estimated
finishing time and a definition of smartphone. The description of a smartphone was
challenging to jot down as there is no official definition in the market, furthermore,
mentioning examples of brands or models could affect the answers of the recall section.
Section Brand Awareness (8)
It covers the measure points of Top of the mind recall (8-1: “List the FIRST brand that
comes to your mind when you think about smartphones”), Brand dominance/Unaided
recall (8-2:“Which other brands, can you think of, if any?”), and Aided brand recognition
(8-3: the respondent is exposed to disguised fragments of brand IMAGERY and asked to
recognize them, and 8-4: the respondent is asked whether he/she is familiar with the
brand NAME). This section is particularly useful in the Graveyard Model in which Recall
points are plotted against Recognition.
Section Price (1)
1-1: “How much more would you pay to buy a <brand X> smartphone instead of <brand
Y> smartphone, given BOTH have identical functionalities?”
Measuring wiliness to pay is an extremely complex exercise and it usually requires

techniques such as trade-off and conjoint analysis, which alone can generate numerous
questions and if combined with the rest of the survey could prove unwieldy. Thus, a
comparable alternative is to measure the wiliness to pay by choosing two similar products
and ask how much the responded would be willing to pay extra for the product that
supposedly has a superior brand perception.
The answer options are scaled in 5 to 1, where each unit represents 29 points (0, $1-$30,
$31-%60, ..., more than $90). They also include a text field to enter a price, if the
respondent disagrees with the order of comparison, and a default answer for an unknown
brand comparison.
Section Leadership and popularity (4)
25
4-1:“Among ALL smartphones, rank the platforms according to what YOU think their
CAPACITY TO INNOVATE”
In the unit scale ranging from 5, the most innovative, to 1, the least innovative,
respondents are asked to rank (mutually-exclusive) the brand names (Android OS,
BlackBerry, iPhone, Nokia, Windows Mobile OS)
Section Perceived quality (5)
5-1: “What is your opinion about the quality of the following smartphone platform in
comparison with ALL the other ones in the market?”
In the unit scale ranging from 5, “The Best”, to 1, “The Worse”, respondents are asked to
rank the products represented by the brand names. The extra option “I never heard of
this brand”, weighting 6, was included to give the possibility to signal no option. These
responses will not be included in the brand equity calculation. Nevertheless, they can be
used to produce insights on brand awareness and even correlate these answers with the
results found in the session Brand Awareness. This question was formulated in a way that
the users were not allowed to repeat the rank position for different brands.
Section Brand personality (6)
6-1: “I have a clear image of the type of person who would use …”
The objective of this question is to measure the intensity in the perception of brand
personality/opinion among the selected smartphone brands. It is not meant to explore
specific characteristics of each brand. As discussed before, other methodologies such as
Limbic Map can be used to identify the consumer the specific positioning of the brand
identity.
Section Organizational associations (7)
This section is divided in a series of five dual questions. The first part of the dual question
measures the respondents’ ability to link the organization brand (among 16 related brand
names) to the product brand. For example, if the respondent answers correctly the
question 7-1: “Which of the companies below do you most associate with the Android
brand?” (Answer= Google), then s/he is led to the second part of the dual question 7-2: “I
admire Google as a company”. The answers for this question are recorded in a range from
5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). On the other hand, if the answer is wrong the
second part of the question is skipped. Wrong results will not be computed in the
calculation of the brand equity, however, they can be used to produce insights on brand
26
awareness and even correlate these answers with the results found in the session Brand
Awareness.
Branched sections
All the above questions were asked across all users of smartphones as they refer to a more
general consumer perception and are not related to product usage. Conversely, perceived
value and satisfaction should be addressed specifically to users of a given smartphone
brand. We divide the users by asking:
separator: “Please choose the platform/OS of your smartphone”
They are offered 5 options of the top brands, plus the option of "I'm not sure or I have
another type of phone". If the latter is chosen, the system directs the respondent to the
end of the survey.
Section Perceived value (3)
3-1:“Is your smartphone with Android a good value for money?” recorded in a range of 5
(strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).
Section Satisfaction & Loyalty (2)
This is a core section of the survey because it represents the dimension selected to
investigate specific attributes of the smartphone brands in relation to the perception of
satisfaction. The first 3 questions are individually used as depend variable in relation to
last one (overall satisfaction). The remaining 6 questions are used as independent
variables to determine the internal drivers of the overall satisfaction (dependent
variable).
Consumer behaviour (scale from 5 – “Definitely yes” to 1 – “Definitely no”)
• Repetitive purchase: 2-1A: “How likely are you to purchase products of <Brand X>?”
• Loyalty: 2-2A: “If <Brand X> is not available, would you switch to another one brand?”
• Recommendation: 2-3A: “Would you recommend smartphones with Android to
others?”
Satisfaction levels (Scale: 5 – “Very satisfied” to 1 – “Very Dissatisfied”)
• Downloaded Apps: 2-4A: “How satisfied are you with the applications that you
downloaded <Brand X> app market?”
27
• Graphics aspects: 2-5A: “How satisfied are you with the graphic aspects of your phone
such as sharpness/precision of images, quality of the graphics, etc?”
• Pre-installed Apps: 2-6A: “How satisfied are you with the pre-installed applications?”
• Services: 2-7A: “How satisfied are you with the services available on your
smartphone”?
• Handset: 2-8A: “How satisfied are you with the design and robustness of your
handset?”
• Operator: 2-9A: “How satisfied are you with the quality of services and products
provided by your smartphone operator?”
• Satisfaction: 2-10A: “Overall, how satisfied are you with your smartphone running
Android?”
Personal information (not part of the Brand Equity Ten)
The last session of the survey, with optional and personal questions, covers the
demographic and psychographic aspects of the respondents.
1) Age: 61% of the respondents were between early thirties/forties and 33% were in their
twenties. No respondent was above 55 years old.
Figure 8: Age3
2) Gender: Over 70% of the respondents were male
3
Number are not representative of the total number of correspondents because this question was optional
28
Figure 9: Gender1
3) Annual Income: Respondents earning above $100,000 represent 32% of the sampled
population. This is probably due to the initial selection of respondents which consisted
mostly of senior professionals and managers, connected to the ESMT alumni network.
Figure 10: Income1
4) Psychological aspects (selected from the Limbic Map): The psychological

characteristics reveal that most of the respondents describe themselves as friendly and
curious as opposed to impulsive and competitive. Each of the three macro-constructs
had 5 nominations of characteristics, i.e., Adventure/Thrill (Impulsive, Competitive,
Adventurous, Creative, and Independent), Fantasy/Pleasure (Sensual, Dreamer,
Sociable, Curious, and Friendly) and Discipline/Control (Traditional, Disciplined,
Ambitious, Efficient and Logical). When the data are aggregated at the level of macro-
constructs, “Discipline and Fantasy” represented the majority4, with 45% and 42%
respectively (see chart below).
4
Loyalty (bond) is a borderline characteristic and it was included to both Discipline and Fantasy constructs.
However, this addition did not changed considerably the trend.
29
Figure 11: Psychological characteristics of the sampled population
5) Comments: An entry box was included to allow users to leave comments about the
survey or an email to send the results. From the 24 comments, 7 expressed the
sentiment of “Good Luck”, 7 expressed concerns about the “clarity of questions”, 4
expressed that the survey was “too long” and 5 requested to have access to the survey
responses.
30
4.0 Analysis of survey results
4.1 Price
1-1: “How much more would you pay to buy a <brand X> smartphone instead of <brand Y>
smartphone, given BOTH have identical functionalities?”
The calculation of the price mean is based on the 5 to 1 scale, where 5 is set to iPhone as
the benchmark reference and the other means are relative to this point.
Android: The distribution is relatively broad across the spectrum, except for the value “0”
(27%), which indicates that nearly one-third of the respondents did not perceive any extra
emotional or self-expression benefit in iPhone in comparison to Android smartphones.
However, 17% did not have any impression of the Android brand, which is the highest level
among all compared brands.
• N=132, Mean=3.29, Standard Deviation=1.51
Figure 12: IPhone and Android OS brands - price comparison
BlackBerry: The distribution is also relatively broad across the spectrum, except for the
value “0” (31%), which indicates that nearly one-third of the respondents did not perceive
any extra emotional or self-expression benefit in iPhone in comparison to BlackBerry.
However, only 1% of the respondents did not have an option about the BlackBerry brand
which suggests that respondents are familiar with the brand.
• n=132, Mean=3.29, Standard Deviation=1.47
31
Figure 13: IPhone and BlackBerry brands - price comparison
Nokia: All respondents were able to compare the Nokia Smartphone’s price and IPhone’s.
Despite 26% of the entries reporting that the brands had no difference, 41% reported that
they were willing to pay $61 or more for an IPhone with the same functionalities. That
suggests a relatively poor performance of Nokia on creating brand value that goes beyond
functional attachment. In fact, it scored the last place in the ranking of means (see table
1).
• N=132,Mean= 2.89, Standard Deviation=1.49
Figure 14: IPhone and Nokia brands - price comparison
Windows Mobile: Its situation is similar to Nokia. The last two points of the scale sum up
42% of respondents who are willing to pay more than $61 for an iPhone with the similar
specification. However, it should be taken into consideration that this brand was new in
the market, as opposite to Nokia smartphones.
• N=132, Mean= 3.01, Standard Deviation=1.51
32
Figure 15: IPhone and Windows Mobile brands - price comparison
Table 2: Price comparison raking

Statistic/Ranking IPhone* Android BlackBerry Windows Mobile Nokia
Mean (n=132) 5 3.29 3.29 3.01 2.89
Std. Dev. 0 1.51 1.47 1.51 1.49
*iPhone was used as the top reference comparison
Because we assumed that iPhone is the top reference point, all the other brands’ mean
will fall below iPhone’s. This assumption was validated as nearly the totality of the
respondents did not enter a negative value, which could indicate that they thought the
comparison was in the reverse order (see survey for details). If we convert the 5-1 range,
presented in the above table, to a monetary range (0- “more than 90”), we verify that
iPhone commands the following premium price: (iPhone – Android)= $21.59, (iPhone –
BlackBerry)= $21.59,(iPhone –Windows Mobile)= $31.00, and (iPhone –Nokia)=$34.19. The
average price premium commanded by iPhone is equal to $27.09.
The following formula was used to convert:
Conversion = Lower bound monetary value +

(Highest range point - Average) *
(Higher bound monetary value - Lower bound monetary value)
For example: Android calculation = 1 + (4 – 3.29) *(30-1) =$21.59
Notice that this is a straightfoward exercise of conversion and should not be used as a base
for price setting strategy or wiliness to pay. The main reason is that the survey did not
specify the baseline price for iPhone, thus, any respondent could estimate his/her own
baseline price. A more accurate method for this type of analysis is a conjoint analysis with
determined baseline prices.
33
4.2 Satisfaction/ Loyalty
This section is divided into three sub-sections: 1- presentation and discussion of the
overall satisfaction level of each the five brands studied; 2- presentation and discussion of
the regression analysis of each dimension (dependent variable) with the higher-level
construct (dependent variable - overall satisfaction) and 3- overall regression analysis.
Notice that the subsections 2 and 3 will not be used in the calculation of the Brand Equity
Ten. However, they are indispensable to produce insights in product-specific preferences
and behaviour.
• Overall Satisfaction Levels
Android: 83% of the 38 Android users were very satisfied (37%) or satisfied (45%) with the
benefits brought by their smartphone, as opposed to 3% of users who were very
dissatisfied (the lowest level among the compared brands).
Figure 16: Android Satisfaction levels
BlackBerry: 86% of the 27 BlackBerry users were very satisfied (25%) or satisfied (61%)
with the benefits brought by their BlackBerry, as opposed to 4% of the users who were
dissatisfied. No user reported being very dissatisfied with the product.
• N=27, Mean= 4.07, Standard Deviation= 0.72
34
Figure 17: BlackBerry satisfaction levels
IPhone: 92% of the 45 iPhone users were very satisfied (56%) or satisfied (36%) with the
benefits brought by their iPhone (the highest level among all compared brands).
Conversely, 4% of the users were either very dissatisfied (2%) or dissatisfied (2%).
Figure 18: iPhone satisfaction levels
Nokia: 79% of the 26 Nokia smartphone users were very satisfied (25%) or satisfied (54%)
with the benefits brought by their smartphone, as opposed to 8% of the users who were
dissatisfied.
Figure 19: Nokia satisfaction levels
35
Windows Mobile: 69% of the 26 Window Mobile smartphone users were very satisfied (15%)
or very satisfied (54%) with the benefits brought by their smartphone (the lowest level
among all compared brands). 12% of the users were dissatisfied (the highest level of
dissatisfaction among all compared brands)
• N=26, Mean 3.73, Standard Deviation= 0.87
Figure 20: Windows mobile satisfaction levels
Table 2: Ranked means of all brand satisfaction levels

Statistic/Ranking IPhone Android BlackBerry Nokia Windows Mobile
Mean (n=132) 4.4 4.13 4.07 3.96 3.73

Standard Deviation 0.86 0.88 0.72 0.86 0.87
2) Individual Regression Analysis (all results used 95% of confidence interval)
Dependent Variable (Scale: 5 – “Very satisfied” to 1 – “Very Dissatisfied”)
• 2-10A: “Overall, how satisfied are you with your smartphone running Android?”
Independent Variables:
• 2-1A: “How likely are you to purchase products of <Brand X>?”

• 2-2A: “If <Brand X> is not available, would you switch to another one brand?”
• 2-3A: “Would you recommend smartphones with Android to others?”
• 2-4A: “How satisfied are you with the applications that you downloaded <Brand X>
app market?”
36
• 2-5A: “How satisfied are you with the graphic aspects of your phone such as
sharpness/precision of images, quality of the graphics, etc?”
• 2-6A: “How satisfied are you with the pre-installed applications?”
• 2-7A: “How satisfied are you with the services available on your smartphone”?
• 2-8A: “How satisfied are you with the design and robustness of your handset?”
• 2-9A: “How satisfied are you with the quality of services and products provided by
your smartphone operator?”
Android (n=38): Overall satisfaction is correlated to pre-installed applications and

services available, with standardized beta coefficients of 0.3964 and 0.5681 respectively,
and R²= 0.641. In addition, the “intention to purchase again” (standardized beta
coefficient of 0.5339 and R²= 0.299) and “intention to recommend the brand”
(standardized beta coefficient of 0.7298 and R²= 0.646) components are correlated to the
“overall satisfaction” dimension (independent variable). Notice that the R² of the
“intention to purchase again” (0.299) is very low, thus the model only explains the
minority of the observations and is not a strong candidate.
BlackBerry (n=28): Overall satisfaction is correlated to services available, with

standardized beta coefficient 0.5225 and R²= 0.486. In addition, the “intention to
purchase again” (standardized beta coefficient of 0.8422 and R²= 0.273) and “intention
to recommend the brand” (standardized beta coefficient of 0.9332 and R²= 0.345)
components are correlated to the “overall satisfaction” dimension (independent variable).
Notice that the R²s for the last two correlations are very low, thus both models only
explain the minority of the observations and are not strong candidates.
IPhone (n=45): Overall satisfaction is correlated to pre-installed applications, services

available, with standardized beta coefficients of 0.5582 and 0.4198 respectively, and R²=
0.434. In addition, the “intention to purchase again” (standardized beta coefficient of
0.6585 and R²= 0.523) component is correlated to the “overall satisfaction” dimension
(independent variable).
Nokia (n=24): Overall satisfaction is correlated to operator’s quality of service/products,

with standardized beta coefficient of 0.8065 and R²= 0.446. In addition, the “switching to
another brand” (standardized beta coefficient of 0.430 and R²= 0.6364), the “intention
to purchase again” (standardized beta coefficient of 1.0221 and R²= 0.648) and
“intention to recommend the brand” (standardized beta coefficient of 0.9902 and R²=
37
0.595) components are correlated to the “overall satisfaction” dimension (independent
variable).
Windows Mobile (n=26): Overall satisfaction (dependent variable) is correlated to pre-

installed applications, with standardized beta coefficient of 0.5285 and R²=0.635. In
addition, the “switching to another brand” (standardized beta coefficient of 0.6137 and
R²= 0.343) and the “intention to recommend the brand” (standardized beta coefficient
of 0.5714 and R²= 0.292) components are correlated to the “overall satisfaction”
dimension (independent variable). Notice that the R² for the last two correlations are very
low, thus both models only explain the minority of the observations and are not strong
candidates.
The dimensions downloaded apps, graphics aspects and handset design did not present any
correlation with the level of satisfaction, either positive or negative (see table below).
Table 3: Results of individual regression analysis (overall satisfaction x dimensions)

Brand Apps Graphic pre- Services Handset Operator
aspects installed Design Services
apps
Android - - 0.3964 0.5681 - -

(n=38, r2=0.641)
BlackBerry - - - - - 0.5225
(n=28, r2= 0.486)
IPhone - - 0.5582 0.4198 - -
(n=45, r2=0.434)
Nokia - - - - - 0.8065
(n=24, r2=0.446)
Windows - - 0.5285 - - -
(n=26, r2=0.635)
Table 4: Results of individual regression analysis of overall satisfaction and independent variable
Dependent. variables Switch Recommend the Purchase again the same
Brand brand brand brand
Android - 0.7298 0.5339

(n=38, r2=0.646, 0.299)
BlackBerry - 0.9332 0.8422
(n=28, r2=0.345, 0.273)
IPhone - - 0.6585
(n=45, r2=0.523)
Nokia 0.430 0.9902 1.0221
(n=24, r2=0.6364, 0.648, 0.595 )
Windows 0.6137 0.5714
(n=26, r2=0.343, 0.292)
38
The figures in bold represent the best model to predict consumer behaviour based on the
satisfaction. For Android and Nokia, the level satisfaction is a good predictor for the
behaviour “recommend the brand”, whereas, for iPhone, it drives the intention to
purchase again the brand. Among Nokia users, satisfaction level is also correlated with the
intention to recommend the brand and loyalty (switch the brand).
3) Aggregated Regression analysis, n=160 (all results used 95% of confidence interval)
a) When all the input was aggregated, it resulted that the overall satisfaction was
correlated to graphic aspects, pre-installed applications, services and operator’s
quality of service/products, where pre-installed applications had the highest
standardized beta coefficient, followed by services. This only demonstrated the
correlation, however further studies are necessary to establish the casual-effect
relationship.
Table 5: Aggregated Regression analysis for all brands

Regression Analysis
R² 0.772
Adjusted R² 0.763 n 160
R 0.879 k 6
Std. Error 0.667 Dep. Var. Overall
ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F p-value
Regression 230.6626 6 38.4438 86.40 1.34E-46
Residual 68.0811 153 0.4450
Total 298.7438 159
Regression output confidence interval
variables coefficients std. error t (df=153) p-value 95% lower 95% upper std. coeff.
Intercept -0.4395 0.1964 -2.238 .0266 -0.8275 -0.0516 0.000
apps 0.0850 0.0446 1.909 .0581 -0.0030 0.1731 0.095
graphic 0.1796 0.0666 2.696 .0078 0.0480 0.3112 0.183
pre-installed 0.3524 0.0772 4.564 1.02E-05 0.1999 0.5050 0.301
services 0.2998 0.0845 3.550 .0005 0.1330 0.4667 0.269
design 0.0363 0.0571 0.636 .5257 -0.0764 0.1490 0.035
operator 0.2057 0.0704 2.922 .0040 0.0666 0.3448 0.153
b) This subsection presents the regressions where “overall satisfaction” is the independent
variable whereas the “intention to purchase again the brand”, the “switching to another
brand” and “intention to recommend the brand” are dependent variable. Each regression
was performed separately. Only “intention to purchase again the brand” was correlated
(statistically significant at 95%) to the “overall satisfaction”, with the standardized beta
coefficient of 0.8198.
Table 6: Regression analysis between behaviour and satisfaction
Regression Analysis
39
r² 0.673 n 160
r 0.820 k 1
Std. Error 0.786 Dep. Var. intention to purchase again the brand
ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F p-value
Regression 200.7607 1 200.7607 324.87 3.61E-40
Residual 97.6393 158 0.6180
Total 298.4000 159
Regression output confidence interval
variables coefficients std. error t (df=158) p-value 95% lower 95% upper std. coeff.
Intercept 0.3794 0.1632 2.324 .0214 0.0570 0.7018 0.000
Overall 0.8198 0.0455 18.024 3.61E-40 0.7299 0.9096 0.820
4.3 Perceived value

3-1:“Is your smartphone with Android a good value for the money?” recorded in a range of
5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).
Android: Among the 38 respondents who use a smartphone with Android, 76% declared
that their device was a good value for the money (the lowest percentage among the
competitors), whereas 11% thought that probably the smartphone with Android was not
worth the total money paid. No respondent declared that the smartphone was not at all
worth the money paid.
Figure 21: Perceived value for Android users
BlackBerry: Among the 27 respondents who use a BlackBerry, 82% declared that their
device was a good value for the money and only 7% thought that probably his/her
BlackBerry was not worth the total money paid. No respondent declared that the
smartphone was not at all worth the money paid.
40
Figure 22: Perceived value for BlackBerry users
iPhone: Among the 45 respondents who use an iPhone, 89% declared that their device was
a good value for the money (the highest level among all competitors), and 9% thought that
probably his/her iPhone was not worth the total money paid. It’s interesting to notice that
2% of the respondents declared that iPhone was not at all worth the money paid. In
average, this brand scored the highest level among all competitors’ products.
Figure 23: Perceived value for iPhone users
Nokia: Among the 26 respondents who use a Nokia smartphone, 77% declared that their
device was a good value for the money and 8% thought that probably his/her Nokia phone
was not worth the total money paid. No respondent declared that the smartphone was not
at all worth the money paid. In addition, 25% were not sure about the value for the
money, which is the highest among all competitors.
41
Figure 24: Perceived value for Nokia users
Windows Mobile: Among the 26 respondents who use a smartphone with Windows Mobile,
77% declared that their device was a good value for the money. 12% thought that probably
his/her smartphone was not worth the total money paid, the highest level among the
competitors. Their smartphone also had the highest score of negative impression, when 4%
of the respondents affirmed that the product was not worth the money. In average, this
brand scored the lowest level among all competitors.
Figure 25: Perceived value for Windows Mobile users
Table 7: Ranked means of all brands’ perceived value

Statistics/ranking IPhone BlackBerry Android Nokia Windows Mobile
(n=45) (n=28) (n=38) (n=24) (n=26)
Mean 4.24 4.11 4.05 4.04 4.00
Std. Deviation 0.96 0.88 0.98 1.11 1.02
4.4 Leadership/popularity
4-1:“Among ALL smartphones, rank the platforms according to what YOU think their
CAPACITY TO INNOVATE”
N=132
42
This question addressed the perception of Innovation leadership driven by the brand and
its products. As detailed in the chart below, IPhone is the absolute leader in the dimension
innovation with 63% in the ranking 1 (first) and 23.38% in the ranking 2. Android came in
the second position, with 26.15% of ranking 1 and 40% of ranking 2. However, Android also
presented the highest standard deviation, mostly caused by a high percentage of least
innovative (20.77%). BlackBerry, was considered between average (43%) and below
average (24.41%), and had the lowest level of innovation leadership with only 1.57%.
Windows Mobile was considered the least innovative, with 38.76% of the ranking 5 (last)
and 34.11% of ranking 4. Nokia ended in the before last position, with 21.09% of the
ranking 5 and 25.78% of ranking 4.
Figure 26: Innovation Leadership of all compared brands
Table 8: Ranked means of all brands’ perception of innovation leadership

Statistics/ranking IPhone Android BlackBerry Nokia Windows Mobile
Mean (n=132) 4.37 3.39 2.67 2.52 2.03
Std. Deviation 1.07 1.5 0.97 1.06 1.1
4.5 Perceived quality

5-1: “What is your opinion about the quality of the following smartphone platform In
comparison with ALL the other ones in the market?”
43
Among the 132 respondents (smartphone consumers) 16.54% said that they did not know
the brand Android, followed by Windows Mobile with 8.27% and Nokia with 1.5%,
therefore they could not assess the quality of the smartphone.
The worse perceived quality was attributed to Windows Mobile (15%) and Nokia (4.5%),
whereas, iPhone receive entry as the best in the product class. Similarly, Windows Mobile
and Nokia were strongly positioned as below average products with 25% and 22%
respectively. The product with the best perception of quality was iPhone (nearly 60%) and
Android (13%). BlackBerry and Android had the highest points in the above average
classification with 48% and 45% respectively. Nokia was strongly classified as an average
product (50%), followed by Windows Mobile (41%).
Figure 27: Perceived quality of all compared brands
Table 9: Ranked means of all brands’ perceived quality

Statistic/Ranking IPhone Android BlackBerry Nokia Windows Mobile
Mean (N=132) 4.51 3.78 3.65 2.92 2.51

Std. Dev. (N=132) 0.67 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.91
4.6 Brand personality (Brand-as-person)

6-1: “I have a clear image of the type of person who would use …”
Among the 132 respondents (smartphone consumers) 15% said that they did not know the
brand Android, followed by Windows Mobile with 5.26% and Nokia nearly 1%. Therefore
they could not assess those brands.
44
Over 83% (sum of strongly agree and agree, 47.37% and 35.34%, respectively) of
respondents think they know the type of person who uses the iPhone brand. This number
is similar to BlackBerry with 84% (sum of strongly agree and agree, 29.32% and 55.64%
respectively). Although both brands have virtually equal strong positions in the
consumer’s mind, iPhone still dominates with a superior ranking in the “strongly agree”
value.
Windows Mobile and Nokia scored the last places with accumulated score of (sum of
strongly disagree and disagree) of 25.57%. These two brands also dominate the “neither
agree nor disagree” value. This suggests that either the brands are perceived as a passe-
partout, i.e., suitable for all people, or the perception is not clear. Android have most of
the answers divided between “agree” (26%) and “neither agree nor disagree” (36.84%). In
either way, for this dimension, Nokia and Windows have successes in creating a strong
differential, which can influence in the purchase decision.
Figure 28: Perception of brand personality for all compared brands
Table 10: Ranked means of all brands’ perceived personality

Statistic IPhone BlackBerry Android Nokia Windows Mobile
Mean (N=132) 4.23 4.07 3.32 2.92 2.83
45
4.7 Organizational associations (Brand-as-organization)
7-1: “Which of the companies below do you most associate with the <Brand X>?”
7-2: “I admire <Brand X’s Organization> as a company”
Android: Among the respondents, only 46% (61 out of 132) related Android to Google.
This is the worse result among the 5 brands analysed. However, among the ones who
correctly linked the Brand to the Organization, 69% admired Google and 7% reported
otherwise (note that none reported “strongly disagree”) .The remaining respondents
associated Android with HTC (23%), Samsung (9%), Motorola (6%), Verizon (6%) and others.
Among the right answers, we have the following results:
Figure 29: Admiration levels towards Google
BlackBerry: Among the respondents, 62% (83 out of 132) related BlackBerry to Research in
Motion. The remaining associated BlackBerry with Palm (9%), Motorola (9%), T-Mobile (8%)
and others. It is worth to notice that 46% of the respondents presented a neutral position
regarding the organization (the highest level among the compared brands) and only 5%
reported no admiration for the company.
Figure 30: Admiration levels towards RIM
46
IPhone: Among the respondents, 95% (127 out of 132) related IPhone to Apple (the highest
level of accuracy among all brands). The remaining associated IPhone with T-Mobile (2%)
and others. Apple also displays the highest level of admiration with the accumulated score
(“strongly agree” plus “agree”) of 85% and the lowest ranking of “no-admiration” (4%).
Figure 31: Admiration levels towards Apple
Nokia5: The Organization Nokia presents the second raking in the “Agree” value, however
the lowest ranking in the “Strong” value, followed by a comparatively high percentage of
neutral position.
Figure 32: Admiration levels towards Nokia
Windows Mobile: Among the respondents, 79% (105 out of 132) related Windows Mobile OS
to Microsoft. The remaining associated Windows Mobile to HTC (8%), T-Mobile (4%) and
others. Microsoft had the highest standard deviation, and as we can see in the chart
below, the company has a bell-shape distribution of the answers. This suggests, for
5
Because the Nokia smartphone carries the brand of the organization company, the association test
was ignored.
47
example, that the opinions are polarized and that many respondents were indifferent
towards the company.
Figure 33: Admiration levels towards Windows Mobile
Table 11: Ranked means for all organization admiration attitudes

Statistic Apple Google Nokia Microsoft BlackBerry
Mean (N=132) 4.16 3.95 3.48 3.26 2.48
4.8 Brand awareness

8-1: “List the FIRST brand that comes to your mind when you think about smartphones”),
8-2:“Which other brands, can you think of, if any?”)
8-3: “Which of these images are familiar to you …”
8-4: “How familiar are you with the following brands in smartphones?”
As discussed in the literature review section, the level of memory recall model represents
the strength of the brand “box” in the consumer’s mind. We used this model to distribute
the weights among the 4 measures under this construct as following: Top of the Mind - 3
points, Unaided Recall – 2 points, Imagery recognition -1 point and Brand Name
recognition -1 point. The Top-of-the-mind Recall and Unaided Recall are mutually-
exclusive, reinforced by the leading question “which other brands…”.
The very few repeated occurrences of the same brand for both answers were adjusted,
and only the Top-of-the-mind Recall answer was considered. No brand display relevant
signs of brand dominance, i.e., the fact that the respondent only remembered one single
48
brand. For each question, we computed “1” for the occurrence of the brand and “0”
otherwise. For the calculation, we formulated the equation below, in which each row
ranges for the highest level of brand awareness 5, to the lowest 1.
Brand awareness = , where
• TM=Top-of-the-mind Recall, UR= Unaided Recall, IR= Imagery Recognition, NR= Brand
Name Recognition
Table 12: Ranked means for all brand awareness levels

Statistic/Ranking IPhone BlackBerry Nokia Windows Mobile Android
Mean (N=132) 3.02 2.87 2.86 1.77 1.37
The same weight distribution was used in the aggregated calculation of the sub-constructs
for recall and recognition. Then, each dimension was plotted against each other, using the
approach described as the Graveyard Model. The analysis of the chart below, suggest the
following:
• Windows Mobile: it is in the graveyard corner. Consumers recognize the brand but
they do not recall it. That can have serious effects on the purchase decision as
discussed previously.
• Android: Relatively lower level or recognition and recall, most probably because it is
the latest in the market. It is important for this brand to define strategies that
increase the level of recall. In this research NO responded reported Android in the top-
of-the-mind recall and only 13 out of 132 mention it in the unaided recall.
• IPhone: Interesting to notice the relative lower level of recall for this brand, most
probably because consumers have not disassociated Apple and IPhone as two different
brands. If we include the organization brand into the calculation that scenario
changes. I tested the same with the other brands such as Microsoft/Windows and
RIM/BlackBerry, but the changes were insignificant.
• Nokia and Blackberry: They are comparatively in the same position. However,
BlackBerry has the advantage of having a higher level of recall.
49
Table 13: Compared Brands plotted in the Graveyard Model
* Please, bear in mind that the combined values of iPhone plus Apple commands the
highest level of brand awareness with a mean of 4.23 and standard deviation of 1.05.
However, this information is used for insight purposes only and is not used in the
calculation of Brand Equity Ten Model.
4.8 Market share

According to the latest report of Gartner on Mobile OS (Gartner 2010), the market share
estimation for the Brand (platform) of smartphone OS is as follow:
Table 14: Brands' Market share

2009 2010
Nokia 44.6% 36.6%
Android 3.5% 25.5%
IPhone 17.1% 16.7%
BlackBerry 20.7% 14.8%
Windows mobile 7.9% 2.8%
Others 6.3% 3.6%
For the purpose of this empirical study, we will only use the 2010 figures. We assumed
that those figures are representative of a long time and therefore they encapsulate
variations of short-term impact of reduced prices or promotions.
Differently from the other dimensions, which are measured in the 5-to-1 range, market
share is measured in percentage. In order to have a comparable measure, we rescaled the
50
percentage to the 5-to-1 range, where “100%” is equivalent to “5” and “0%” to “1” (see
table below).
Table 15: Market Share scaled to 5-to-1 range

Nokia Android IPhone BlackBerry Windows
Mobile
Rescaled 2.83 2.28 1.84 1.74 1.14
Final ranking
For the final ranking, we presented two alternatives, the first one is based on the average
values and the second one based on the ranking positions weighted from 5 to 1, where the
first place receives 5. In both approaches, all brands are equally placed, when only the
consumer survey data is considered. However, in the ranking by unit points, Android
surpasses BlackBerry and reaches the second place in the total ranking. This is mainly due
to the strong market position of Android (25.5% in 2010, from 3.5% in 2009) against a week
week market position of BlackBerry (14.8% in 2010, from 20.7% in 2009).
6
Table 16: Final Ranking - Approach One: Grand mean
IPhone BlackBerry Android Nokia Windows Mobile Dimensions
5.00 3.29 3.29 2.89 3.01 Price
4.40 4.07 4.13 3.96 3.73 Satisfaction
4.24 4.11 4.05 4.04 4.00 Value
4.37 2.67 3.39 2.52 2.03 Leadership
4.51 3.65 3.78 2.92 2.51 Quality
4.23 4.07 3.32 2.92 2.83 Personality
4.16 3.52 3.95 3.48 3.26 Organization
3.02 2.87 1.37 2.86 1.77 Awareness
Survey Mean 4.24 3.53 3.41 3.20 2.89
1.84 1.74 2.28 2.83 1.14 Market Share
Grand Mean 3.97 3.33 3.28 3.16 2.70
6
We did not include the tenth dimension, market price and distribution measure, in the calculation due to the
constraints and scope of this research. The underpinning reason is that creating the price-level statistics for
the different channels, the different operators’ packages (some triple play bundles offer smartphone for free)
is very difficult to conceptualize. Moreover, to gather the data from the complex retail network may be very
time-consuming and expensive.
51
9
Table 17: Final Ranking - approach Two: Ranking by unit points
IPhone BlackBerry Android Nokia Windows Mobile Dimensions
5 4 4 2 3 Price
5 3 4 2 1 Satisfaction
5 4 3 2 1 Value
5 3 4 2 1 Leadership
5 3 4 2 1 Quality
5 4 3 2 1 Personality
5 3 4 2 1 Organization
5 4 1 3 2 Awareness
Survey points 40 28 27 17 11
3 2 4 5 1 Market Share
Total points 43 30 31 22 12
As we can observe in both rankings, iPhone brand has a large advantage against the other
brands, especially in the point ranking, where iPhone commands 13 points of difference
from the second brand, BlackBerry. This alone is higher than the points attributed to
Windows Mobile which figures in the last position, with only 12 points. Android and
BlackBerry are technically in the same position of brand strength. Nokia is the fourth
place, 21 points behind the brand champion iPhone, which is almost all the points the
brand itself accumulated.
52
5.0 Conclusion and recommendations
This section provides conclusions and recommendations based on the quantitative analysis
developed on the chapter 4. We grouped the conclusions into four thematic areas,
following the Brand Equity Ten aggregated constructs: 5.1) Loyalty: price premium and
satisfaction, 5.2) Perceived quality/leadership, 5.3) Associations: brand as a product, as a
personality and as an organization and 5.4) Brand awareness.
5.1 Loyalty: price premium and satisfaction
5.1.1 Price premium
In general, the data analyzed suggest that the iPhone brand commands a price premium
in comparison to the compared brands. This observation has a direct impact in the
financial position of Apple and directly captures the loyalty of consumers (Aaker 1996).
Once converted from the 5-1 scale to the dollar scale, iPhone commanded an average of
$27 above the price of similar products of competitors. A convenient characteristic of
the price premium is that it can be used in the estimation of the brand value. It is
importance to notice that all compared brands presented a relatively high standard
deviation, which suggests that further studies should be undertaken to validate this figure,
or to determine the figure for different group of consumers or different markets.
Statistically, Nokia smartphones presented the lowest power of command price

premium. Android had the highest number of smartphone respondents who did not know
the brand (17%). This Android’s low level of brand awareness is further confirmed with the
low ranking in the brand recall construct.
5.1.2 Satisfaction
The analysis of this dimension involved the measurement of overall satisfaction and a
tangential regression analysis of the key drivers of satisfaction. The latter is not defined in
the Brand Equity Ten Model, but it provides product-specific insights that are extremely
valuable in defining directions for brand strategy. Among the relevant insights, we found
the following:
• All brands displayed a positive overall satisfaction. Moreover, they presented a

relatively low standard deviation, which suggests a strong convergence of opinions
53
among the respondents. Microsoft Mobile OS had the highest level of dissatisfaction
(12%).
• The regression analysis (95% of confidence level) at the brand level pointed out that
the overall satisfaction (dependent variable) is correlated with different independent
variable for each brand. For the satisfaction of Android and iPhone and smartphone
users, Pre-installed applications and Services available are key the drivers. On the
other hand, for BlackBerry and Nokia smartphone users the operator’s
services/products are the strongest driver. Having the results grouped in this way can
help brand managers to identify similar attitudes towards the smartphone experience.
• The regression analysis (95% of confidence level) for the valid answers (n=160) of ALL
brands revealed that overall satisfaction (dependent variable) is correlated to pre-
installed applications, services available, operator’s services/products and graphic
aspects, with standardized beta coefficients of 0.3524, 0.2998, 0.2057 and 0.1796. It
is important to notice that, for this sample, the handset design and downloaded apps
was not correlated with the overall satisfaction. This information is crucial for brand
managers or marketers in the design of their campaigns. For example, if selling
downloaded application could be highly profitable, then future campaigns should focus
more on sensitize users of the applications’ benefits.
• The regression analysis (95% of confidence level) for the valid answers (n=160) of ALL
brands revealed that “intention to purchase again the brand” (dependent variable)
is correlated to “overall satisfaction”, with the high coefficient of 0.8198. The
criteria “intention to recommend the brand” and “switch to another brand” was NOT
correlated to overall satisfaction.
5.2 Leadership and Perceived quality

• The measures for both dimensions revealed equal rankings. iPhone is ranked as the
most innovative brand and with the best quality product among the compared
smartphones, whereas Windows Mobile is ranked in last for both criteria. Android
stands only one point behind iPhone in the innovation leadership and less than one
point for the perceived quality. This information potentially places Android in a
competitive position against iPhone, especially considering that the other more
established brands such as BlackBerry and Nokia are behind. Therefore, it is essential
for the Android brand managers to follow up closely the development of these
dimensions and ensure further strengthening of the brand.
54
5.3 Brand personality
• As discussed previously, the brand awareness level of Android is not as strong as the
other competitors. One of the reasons is that the image and value proposition
propagated by the different players in the value chain is diffuse. In an empirical
market investigation on operator stores in Berlin, we noticed that operators have
different campaigns for Android. Some campaigns advertise it just as the application
market, some as “Google’s operating system” and some do not even mention the name
of the operating system. The fact that only 46% of the respondents associated
Android to Google suggests that the brand personality has not been handled in the
most efficient way. This could be a reflection of lack of ownership of the product, as
the Android OS is open source and its development is shared by Google, the developer
community and the Open Handset Alliance. In addition, the association of the Android
Brand with the Google Brand could be extremely beneficial, as 70% of the
respondents declared to have a positive sentiment (admiration) towards the
Company. Moreover, only 7% expressed to have a negative sentiment towards
Google, which is the lowest level among all compared brands.
• In contrast, Microsoft presented a divided opinion, reflected in the highest standard

deviation. This suggests polarization of opinions about the organization or possibly
influence of different experiences with Microsoft products. Therefore, it is highly
recommended for Microsoft to invest in campaigns that improve its image among
the users of its products, especially in the segment of smartphone users.
5.4 Brand awareness

The graveyard model is a straight-forward and yet powerful model to establish the
relationship between brand recall and recognition levels. Windows Mobile brand is the
so-called graveyard, which is in the most vulnerable coordinate of the model. This means
that consumers recognize the brand name and imagery but are unable to recall the brand.
As discussed in the chapter 3, this could be a reflection of low differentiation of the
product (Aaker, 1996) or week market presence/distribution. Similarly, Android is not in
the best position, with the lowest recognition and recall levels among the compared
brands. In the sample, NO respondent reported in the top-of-the-mind recall.
Therefore, it is indispensable for Google and Android partners to establish a more
consistent and aggressive campaign. As discussed above, this is particularly salient in order
to communicate the value proposition of the brand clearly and avoid diffuse associations.
55
Rankings
Two pertinent observations derived from producing the rankings. First, both approaches
i.e., equal-weighted mean and point ranking, consistently position the brand in similar
ranking. This observation holds true for the ranking produced from the survey and after
the market information is considered.
The second observation is that there is no direct relationship between the brand equity
strength the market share. For example, despite its absolute leadership in all dimensions,
iPhone only captured the third position of market share. Conversely, Nokia, whose brand
equity is the penultimate, captured over 36% of market share. It is important to notice
that popularity is not part of the long-term strategy of some brands. These brands give
preference to be perceived as exclusive and command higher prices. They achieve that by
creating a high-consumer pull while controlling the supply/distribution volumes. iPhone is
an excellent example of this practice.
56
6.0 Limitations
To contextualize the conclusions above into a more generic perspective, we would like to
highlight some limitations of the research.
1) The analysis aimed at measuring brand equity across markets, thus, the insights and
measurements should not be used to explain or predict behaviour of a particular
market. This is mainly due to the respondents live in different countries. Therefore,
they could have been potentially exposed to a different level of marketing as well as
different campaigns, which could have shaped their brand perception and product
experience in a different way. Therefore, for marketers and brand managers, it would
be constructive to segment future studies based on the market or group of markets
with similar profiles. This includes considering a different set of competitors for
different markets and expanding the number of competitors to include entrants.
2) The conclusions are representative of the initial snapshot of consumers’ perception

and market performance. It did not consider trends and past dynamics, which, if used,
could help to reshape the conclusions or even to define different number of
dimensions.
3) The statistical model used the conventional 5-to-1 scale to capture positive, neutral
and negative sentiments of each dimension. However, by averaging out the scale,
some information could be lost. For example, if opinions about a given dimension are
polarised, i.e., many respondents declare to have a positive attitude, while a similar
number declared, otherwise, the resulting average could a medium value. This value
could be similar to another figure which resulted from the fact that most respondents
had a neutral opinion on the dimension. In those cases, to restrict the conclusions
based solely on the average could be misleading. Therefore, for some dimensions, it
would be more beneficial to analyse the relationship between the negative and
positive sentiments, rather than a crude average. A graphical analysis of a 2x2 matrix,
where both values are plotted against each other, could be substantially insightful.
57
7.0 Outlook for future research
As we have explored in the previous chapters, the application of Brand Equity Ten in the
context of the smartphone segment resulted various insights and parsimonious measures. A
reasonable starting point is to adopt a comprehensive model such as Brand Equity Ten,
which can be vertically extended by exploring in-depth one of the dimensions and its
internal drivers (performed in this research with the dimension satisfaction). For this
research, in particular, we selected following areas that would benefit from further
studies:
1) Validate the model in other contexts: Following, the establishment of the initial
snapshot (brand equity means) the brand strength should be compared and measured
over time. Thus, a good way to validate the model proposed here is to test it in a
context where time series plays a pivotal role in understanding trends in the brand
equity and market dynamics. For example, the initial set of compared competitors may
change if a strong brand enters the market or if a small incumbent brand becomes
steadily stronger.
2) Validate the dimensions for the smartphone segment: With time and more data
captured, the team of market analysts is expected to understand each dimension and
how they contribute to the development of the brand equity. For example, the criteria
innovation leadership may be particularly important for technology products but not
necessary for a soft-drink brand such as Coca-Cola. In addition, in managing their
brand strategy, some companies may want to track more or fewer dimensions.
3) Expand the area and the number of smartphone users surveyed: With a larger number
of respondents, market analysts can tap into more significant demographic and
psychographic results, which include extra correlations and identification of niches’
preferences and behaviour (cluster analysis). In addition, a comparative study of
markets in isolation may produce more insights than analysing the data at a high-level
of aggregation.
4) Use parallel studies and integrate the results within the Brand Equity measure: For
example, for the assessment of price premium, a comprehensive conjoint analysis is
more advisable as opposed to a set of fixed price list of options. Conjoint analysis
produce more accurate results, when a company involves brand managers and markets
58
to define the criteria and its values as well as the relevant cards to be provided to the
respondents. Conjoint analysis could also help to identify the key drivers influencing
the price premium.
5) Integrate the insights and measures with other qualitative approaches and models:
The quantitative approach is just one way to understand and track brand
value/perception. Qualitative studies such as ZMET and Limbic system could
complement the overall perception of the brand in the consumers’ mind. Qualitative
analysis is especially suitable to design, track the process of the value proposition
creation, which involves codifying the brand value proposition, communicate it and
assess its de-codification in the consumers’ mind.
6) Move beyond the smartphone segment: Finally, the Brand Equity Ten should be used in
the measurement of brand equity beyond the smartphone segment. If applied
consistently, the model should prove to be useful to compare brands across various
product classes. In addition, putting in perspective the measure of brand equity of
brands in the smartphone brands with that of other segments, would provide more
implications to the measure of brand equity.
59
Appendix I: Aaker’s model on How Brand equity
generates value
Figure 34: Aaker’s Brand Equity model
7
Source: Aaker (1991)
60
Appendix II – Complete Survey (Word extraction from
Qualtrics)
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
References
Aaker, David A., (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand
Name, New York: Free Press.
Aaker, David A., (1996). Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press.
Aaker, David A., (2004). Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance, Differentiation,
Energy, Leverage and Clarity, New York: Free Press.
American Marketing Association, 1995. “Resource Library – Dictionary”.

http://www.marketingpower.com/_layouts/dictionary.aspx (Accessed on 6, November
2010).
Amazon (2010), “Definition of Mechanical Turk”, Amazon. http://aws.amazon.com/mturk

(accessed November 5, 2010).
Apple (2007). “Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone”, Apple website.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09iphone.html (accessed November 5, 2010).
Apple Developer (2010), “IOS Dev Center”, Apple Developers website.

http://developer.apple.com/devcenter/ios/index.action (accessed November 6, 2010).
Apple iPhone (2010), “Learn about apps available on the app store”, Apple iPhone
website. http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone (accessed November 6, 2010).
Android developers (2010). “Platform version statistics”, Android.com.

developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html (accessed November
10, 2010).
Android Fragmentation (2010). “The Open Android Device Knowledge Base”.

http://www.androidfragmentation.com/news (accessed November 6, 2010).
BBC (2009), “4G mobile phone network comes to Scandinavia”, BBC News. 14, November
2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8412035.stm (accessed November 4, 2010).
Best, Roger J., (2008). Market-based Management”, 5th edition. London: Prentice Hall.
73
Business Week (2010), “IDC: Apple App Store to Top 300,000 Apps in 2010”.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/12/idc_apple_app_st
ore_to_top_300000_apps_in_2010.html (accessed November 6, 2010).
Chattopadyay, A. & Basu, K. (1990). “Humor in advertising: the moderating role of prior
brand evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, (4), 466-76.
Dalrymple, J. (2007). “Lessons learned from the iPhone price cuts.” PCWorld.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/137046/lessons_learned_from_the_iphone_price_cuts.h
tml (accessed on 6, November 2010).
Erdem, T., (1998). “An empirical analysis of umbrella branding”, Journal of Marketing
research, 35 (3), 339-51.
Erdem, Tülin and Swait, Joffre, (1998). “Brand Equity as a Signalling Phenomenon”.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.
Feldwick, Paul, (1996). “What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure it?",
Journal of the Market Research Society. 38 (2), 85-104.
Fullerton, R.(1988), "How modern is modern marketing? Marketing's evolution and the
myth of the production era", Journal of Marketing, 52 (1), 108-25.
Gartner News Room (2010), “Gartner Says Android to Become No. 2 Worldwide Mobile
Operating”. http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613 (accessed November 15,
2010).
Guedes, Porthos, (2010). Interview by author. 23, October, 2010, Berlin, Germany.
Gilder, George (2000), “TELECOSM: How Infinite Bandwidth will Revolutionize Our World”,
New York: Free Press.
Google, (2010). “Google milestones.”, Google website.

http://www.google.com/corporate/milestones.html (accessed November 3, 2010).
Google Code (2008), “Android Developer Challenge”, Google.

http://code.google.com/android/adc/(accessed November 4, 2010).
Grand, John (2006), “Brand Innovation Manifesto: How to Build Brands, Redefine Markets
and Defy Conventions”, Hoboken:Wiley.
74
Gregory, James R. and Sexton, Donald E., (2007). “Hidden Wealth in B2B Brands”, Harvard
Business Review. http://hbr.org/2007/03/hidden-wealth-in-b2b-brands/ar/1 (access on
November 15, 2010).
Group Nyphenburg (2003), Brand and Retail Experts, “Limbic® – innovative tool for
applied neuromarketing”, http://www.nymphenburg.de/english/limbic.html (access on
November 15, 2010).
Gupta, A. K., (2009). “Brand Management”.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36178071/30273170-Brand-Management-PPT (accessed
November 7, 2010).
Harris Interactive (1995), “Equitrend: Your source of Essential Market Data”.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Products/MultiClient/EquiTrend.aspx (accessed
November 7, 2010).
ITU-ICT (2010), “The world in 2010, Facts and figures”, International Telecommunication
Union. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf (accessed, November
3, 2010).
ITU (2010), “Mobile broadband”, International Telecommunication Union.

http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2010/03/09.aspx (accessed November 3, 2010).
Interbrand Group (1992), “World’s Greatest Brands: An international Review”, John Wiley
Hoboken: John Wiley.
Jacobson, Robert & Aaker, David, (1987). “The strategic Role of Product Quality”, Journal
of Marketing, 51 (4), 31-44.
Keller, K.L, Lehmann, D.R (2001), “The brand value chain: optimizing strategic and
financial brand performance”, Marketing Management, May/June, 26-31.
Keller, Kevin Lane, (2002). “Branding and Brand Equity”, Handbook of Marketing - Barton
Weitz and Robin Wensley, London: Sage Publication Ltd, 151-178.
Keller, Kevin Lane and Kotler, Philip, (2006). Marketing Management, Twelfth Edition, New
Jersey:Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kerin, Berkowitz, and HARTLEY, Rudelius, (2003). “Managing Products and Brands”,
Marketing, 7th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
75
Malley, A (2007), “Apple, AT&T neophytes to define iPhone audience”. AppleInsider.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/06/06/apple_att_neophytes_to_define_iphone
_audience_report.html (accessed November 5, 2010).
McCrum, A (2000). "Brand names today compared to those 100 years ago," Journal
of Brand Management, 8 (2):111-21.
Menn, Joseph (2010), “Android faces critical security study”, Financial Times.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/10b955ba-e519-11df-8e0d-00144feabdc0.html (accessed on
November 1, 2010).
Morgan Stanley, (2010). “Internet trends 2010”, Morgan Stanley.

www.morganstanley.com/institutional/techresearch/pdfs/Internet_Trends_041210.pdf
Moore, Gordon, (1965). “Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits”,

Electronics Magazine.
Newman, Jared, (2010). “The Worst Android Fragmentation is yet to Come”, PCWorld.
www.pcworld.com/article/209570/the_worst_android_fragmentation_is_yet_to_come.ht
ml (accessed November 10, 2010).
Pahwa, Nikhil, (2010). “India’s 3G Auction Ends - Operator and Circle-Wise Results”,
MediaNama news and analysis of digital media in India.
http://www.medianama.com/2010/05/223-3g-auction-india-ends-provisional-winners
Peylo, Christoph, (2010). Interview by author. 22, October, 2010, Berlin, Germany.
Rathbone, J. Paul (2010), “Much still do to for the president-elect”, Financial Times,
Brazil - special report, 15, November, 2010.
Reuters (2010), “Govt starts wireless broadband airwave auction”, Thompson Reuters.
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48749820100524 (accessed November 4, 2010)
RNCOS, (2010). “Heavy Investment in Infrastructure Drives China’s 3G Market”, RNCOS –

Industry research Solutions, 2010. http://www.rncos.com/Blog/2010/01/Heavy-
Investment-in-Infrastructure-Drives-China-3G-Market.html (accessed November 2, 2010).
76
Singel, Ryan, (2010). “Verizon Pushes 10 Gbps through Fibre Network”.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/06/verizon-fiber-test (access November 5, 2010)
Shapiro, Carl, Varian, Hal R., (1998), “Information rules: a strategic guide to the network
economy”, Mcgraw-Hill Professional.
Strategic Planning Institute, (2010). Profit Impact of Market Strategy (PIMS).

http://pimsonline.com/index.htm (access November 4, 2010).
Venkatraman, N., (2008). “Globalization 3.0 and the shift from economies of scale to
expertise”.http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-
cms/news/?dept=644&id=51430&template=230 (access on 2, November 2010).
TELECO-ANATEL, “3G: 3rd Cellular Generation in Brazil”, Inteligencia em

Telecomunicações, (25, October, 2010. http://www.teleco.com.br/en/en_3g_brasil.asp
(accessed on 3, November, 2010).
TeliaSonera, (2009). “About 4G”, TeliaSonera. http://www.teliasonera.com/4g/faq-

4g.html (accessed on 3, November 2010).
Wathan, Navinder Singh, (2010). Interview by Author. 25, October, 2010, Berlin, Germany
Wielage, Mark, Woodcock, Rod, “The rise and fall of Beta”, Videofax, issue 5, 1988.
WMB & Associates, Statistical Services, “Brand Equity Estimation – A Demonstration”,

2003. http://home.earthlink.net/~statmanz/papers/Brand_Equity_Estimation.pdf
(accessed on 8, November 2010).
Wood, Lisa, (2010). "Brands and brand equity: definition and management", Journal of
Management Decision, Vol. 38, Issue: 9, pp.662–669.
WTDR-ICT (2010), “Monitoring the WSIS targets, a mid-term review”, World

Telecommunication/ICT Development Report, 2010. http://www.itu.int/ITU-
D/ict/publications/wtdr_10 (accessed November 3, 2010).
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. & Lee, S, “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and
brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000:195-211.
77
Yooa, Boonghee and Donthu, Naveen, (2001). “Developing and validating
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”. Journal of Business Research, 52
(1), 1-14.
Young & Rubican, (1950). “Brand Asset Valuator: Four Pillars: The Sequence of Brand
Development”, Brand Asset Consulting. http://www.brandassetconsulting.com (accessed
on 7, November, 2010).
78

TMP B3 A0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TMP B3 A0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESMT

Developing a multidimensional, equal-

for the degree of Master of Business Administration at the

European School of Management and Technology

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1881672

1.1 Recent development

1.1.1 Technology evolution

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1881672

1.2 Business models

1.2.1 Apple and IPhone

1.2.2 Google and Android

In order to continue growing, Android is determined to continue position itself as an OS

1.3 The research objectives

• Provide marketing professionals and students with a reliable and parsimonious

1.4 Structure of the research

2.1 Brand definitions and functions

“A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies

Contemporary researchers define brand in different terms. Feldwick (1996) provided a

• Product-related effects: Brand name is positively correlated to purchase intention,

• Communication-related effects: The so-called halo effect of a success brand over a

2.2 Theoretical approaches and Methods for brand equity

2.2.1 What is brand equity?

Extending that definition, while keeping the dimensions of importance related to

“The added value endowed on products and services, reflected in how

2.2.2 Theoretical approaches for brand equity assessment

Psychology-based approaches: The theoretical frameworks are delineated from the

Biological- and sociology-based approaches: Some researchers have based their

Figure 1: Steps of the Keller's Brand Equity Model

Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator

Figure 2: the Y&R Model of Brand Dynamics

Harris Interactive’s EquiTrend

2.3 The Brand Equity Ten: Towards a single measurement

Figure 3: Aaker's Brand Equity Ten Model

2. Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty: Satisfaction is a direct measure of the degree to which

Perceived quality and leadership measures

5. Value proposition: This measure summarizes the motivations of a consumer to buy a

A brand personality can also be defined as a set of characteristics usually associated to

Figure 4: Limbic map (Group Nyphenburg 2003)

7. Organizational associations: The third dimension of brand identity is the brand-as-

8. Brand awareness: Brand awareness can be compared to a “box” in the consumer’s

a) Brand Dominance (the only brand remembered):

Figure 5: Levels of memory recall (based on Gupta 2009, 7)

Figure 6: Graveyard Model (Aaaker 1996, 15)

Low Recall High

Market behaviour measures

Discussion on the calculation of a single BE measure and brands

3.1 Research setup and implementation

Survey preparation, test and distribution

Phase 1: Develop an online prototype of the survey in Qualtrics.

3.2 The survey

Introduction: Welcome and smartphone definition

Section Brand Awareness (8)

Section Price (1)

Measuring wiliness to pay is an extremely complex exercise and it usually requires

Section Leadership and popularity (4)

Section Perceived quality (5)

Section Brand personality (6)

Section Organizational associations (7)

separator: “Please choose the platform/OS of your smartphone”

Section Perceived value (3)

Section Satisfaction & Loyalty (2)

Consumer behaviour (scale from 5 – “Definitely yes” to 1 – “Definitely no”)