European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

DIMENSIONS OF BRAND KNOWLEDGE: TURKISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS CONSUMPTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRANDS

Nazli Alimen, Ph.D. Candidate, Izmir University of Economics, The Institute of Social Sciences, Turkey, nazli.alimen@ieu.edu.tr Prof. A. Guldem Cerit, Dokuz Eyll University, School of Maritime Business and Management, Turkey, gcerit@deu.edu.tr
Abstract Brand has been considered as one of the most important assets of a company and studied by many scholars. Brand knowledge, which comprises brand awareness and brand image, is the consumer side of brand. The objective of this study is to reveal the brand knowledge of nine fashion brands which are largely consumed in Turkey. An exploratory study is performed among university students of different departments and the results are compared with respect to the departments, gender of the students and the usage frequencies of these brands. In conclusion it can be suggested that students belonging to the departments that are more related with fashion and female consumers have deeper brand knowledge. Keywords: Brand Knowledge, Fashion, International Brand.

I. INTRODUCTION
In international business, one of the factors that lead to success in consumer markets is to have a strong brand, which is achieved through a greater level of brand knowledge. Brand awareness and brand image are two components of brand knowledge, which are the consumer sides of brand; therefore they could be controlled by a company via communication. Brand image is linked to functional and emotional elements, which could also help a company to communicate with consumers. Fashion, on the other hand, is generally used to refer to clothing and described as a process which determines particular design, products or social behaviours for a specific period of time and replaces them regularly with new ones (Saviolo, 2002). Fashion has three components that are style, acceptance and timing (Frings, 1982; Packard et al., 1983; Wolfe, 2003). Guedes and da Costa Soares (2005) suggested that the brand could be added as a fourth component of fashion. The brand component has two elements: the international fashion product and the market segment fashion product. All over the world, international brands present the same image of fashion, supported by franchising chains and marketing communication activities. It is required that the impact of personal or environmental determinants on brand knowledge have to be clarified, mainly in the markets where fashion is highly consumed, such as young university students. This paper focuses on such an objective. 1. Brand Knowledge Brand helps to differentiate products or services from the others (Kotler and Keller, 2009, 276) and embodies every undertaking of the company and represents it to the world as a hologram, plays a part in the formation of relationships, and expresses and contributes group affiliation (Sherry, 2005, 46). For firms, brands are the markers of their offerings and signs of quality, risk and trust for consumers (Keller and Lehmann, 2005).

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Knowledge is an outcome of apprehension and information within a particular context. Probst et al. (2001, 24) described knowledge as the whole body of cognitions and skills that individuals use in order to solve problems. Knowledge, which enables an individual or organization to appraise and aggregate new ideas and information, is more than a collection of experiences and values (Davenport and Prusack, 1998). Knowledge can also be regarded as the accumulation and cultivation of information and data over time (Leonard-Barton, 1995). Correlating diverse information, such as awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and experiences, to a brand constitutes brand knowledge (Keller, 2003). Brand knowledge is based upon a constant communication with consumers that elicits real comprehension of the product or service (Richards et al., 1998). Keller (2003) defined consumer brand knowledge as all descriptive and evaluative brand-related information, which was individualistic inference about a brand stored in consumer memory. Kaplan (2007) mentions that a brands overall value demonstrates its equity. According to Aaker (1996) brand equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product to a firm, or to a firms customers or to that firms customers. It comprises brand related notions as brand awareness and brand image (shown in Figure 1), which compose brand knowledge and directly affect consumer responses (Keller, 1993).

Figure 1. Dimensions of Brand Knowledge, Keller (1993).

1.1. Brand Awareness

Brand awareness is the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category (Aaker, 1991). It is associated to the strength of brand clew in memory that enables consumers to ascertain the brand under dissimilar conditions (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). Brand awareness is the strength of a brands presence in the mind of the consumer (Ross, 2006). Ross (2006) proposed that experience-induced antecedents do have an impact on brand awareness, and that impact is indicated through the direct relationship within the framework.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Keller (1993) classifies brand awareness into brand recognition and brand recall (Figure 1). Brand recognition relates to consumers' ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue. Brand recall relates to consumers' ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue (Keller, 1993).
1.2. Brand Image

Brand image is defined by American Marketing Association as a mirror reflection [though perhaps inaccurate] of the brand personality or product being. It is what people believe about a brand-their thoughts, feelings, expectations. Scholars variously described brand image as the perceptions and beliefs held by consumers, as reflected in the associations held in consumer memory (Kotler and Keller, 2009, 783), a set of associations, usually organized in some meaningful way (Aaker, 1991, 109) and the external form and observable characteristics of the markets offering (Sherry, 2005, 48). Brand image is a source that provides the brand to accomplish and remain resonant and adequate in consumers minds (Sherry, 2005). Communicating the brand image clearly to target consumers, which allows consumers a need satisfaction by the brand (Park et al., 1986) and differentiate the brand from the competitors (DiMingo, 1988), and is an important part of marketing activity (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Grubb and Grathwol, 1967; Moran 1973; Roth, 1995). Roth (1995) suggests that the effect of brand image strategies on product performance and the management of brand images should be considered while analyzing brand image strategies. Brand image is a meaning associated to the brand by consumers (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990; Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1998; del Rio et al., 2001; Nandan, 2005). Brand image is regarded as a consumer-constructed concept, due to consumers creating a personal or image related to the brand with regard to their knowledge and perceptions (Nandan, 2005). These associations, which are linkages of a brand in memory (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993, 1998) and differ among consumers (Hung, 2008), provide marketers to differentiate, position, and extend brands (Low, Lamb, 2000) and consumers to process, organize, and retrieve information in making purchase decisions (Aaker, 1991, 109-113). Brand image is a result of consumers decoding of all the signals delivered by the brand such as brand name, visual signs, products, sponsoring, and advertising (Kapferer, 1994). Danesi (2006) proposes that the use of brand name enables consumers not only to recognize certain goods and distinguish them from others, but also to associate connotative meanings to them. Therefore, it allows consumers to decode brand image. 2. Measuring Brand Knowledge: Brand Image and Brand Awareness Knowledge can be divided into direct or explicit knowledge or indirect, implicit or tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Sveiby, 1997). Sharif (2004) mentions that explicit knowledge is objective and theoretical which can be asserted via formal logical and systematic arguments. Such knowledge is enunciable and alterable with ease, through many forms of media documents, audiovisual equipment, computerised records etc. He proposes that explicit knowledge can be a part of the world, i.e. relates to some object. Tacit knowledge on the other hand, he explains, is mostly subjective, practical and personal. Therefore, it could be a part of a person, i.e. relates to some subject and this is why it is difficult to formalise and communicate to others. In this regard, brand knowledge could comprehend both explicit and implicit knowledge. Perceptions of brand associations held in the consumers minds are called as brand image (Keller, 2003). Therefore, measuring brand image is to evaluate these brand associations. To do that, there are several ways, as applying or adapting an existing list of brand associations (e.g., the brand personality list of Aaker) or developing a new scale, which is achieved through revealing brand associations and then measuring the strength of brand associations (Chandon, 2003).

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Brand image, which is enrooted in both tangible and intangible associations linked to the attributes of the product, is assessed through various approaches (Kaplan, 2007). These approaches could be divided into two main categories: scaling and sorting (Joyce, 1963). Whether there is a relation between a brand and attribute and its strength is determined via scaling techniques whereas only corporeity of attribute is detected through sorting techniques (Driesener and Romaniuk, 2006). The scale of Kaplan (2007) is consisted of 13 items (Figure 2). First 8 items of the brand image scale are cognitive brand associations, which evaluate the associations attached to the physical features and functions of each brands products, and the remaining 5 items are emotional brand associations, which measure attributions that each individual himself or herself attaches to a brand.

Products of this brand 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Perform as expected. Offer value for price. Are reliable. Are functional. Are usable. Are durable. Have technical sophistication. Are expensive. Make a person feel good. Target high-income level. Increase the respectability of its user. Are admired by my friends and relatives. Express my personality.

Cognitive Brand Associations

Emotional Brand Associations

Figure 2. Brand Image Scale Items, Kaplan (2007). Scaling and ranking measures provide to distinguish among brands, as pick-any measure asks for yes or no for each brand (Driesener and Romaniuk, 2001). Several scholars pointed the distinct patterns in brand image data while applying pick-any technique (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990; Sharp et al., 1998). Driesener and Romaniuk (2006) evaluated three of these brand image measurement techniques, one of which was a sorting, a pick-any, and the other two were, scaling, which were likert rating and ranking and revealed that all provided equivalent results.

II. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to reveal the knowledge of 9 fashion brands, which were largely consumed by university students in Turkey. 7 of them were international fashion brands, Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Guess, and Mango. The other 2 were Turkish international fashion brands, which were chosen to compare with the other well-known ones. It was aimed to understand whether having studied in the field of fashion affected the knowledge about fashion brands or not. Gender and consumption of the brands could also be effective on the brand knowledge. These variables were also considered in the analyses. The research model is given in Figure 3.

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Demographic Variables and Usage Frequency of Brands University Departments Gender of Students Usage of Brands

Fashion Brand Knowledge

Brand Awareness Brand Image

Figure 3. Research Model

III. HYPOTHESES
In order to attain the objectives of the study, 3 main hypotheses and 48 sub-hypotheses were developed. Each one of these hypotheses was analyzed according to demographic variables (see Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7). These sub-hypothesis are 3 for H1, 8 for H2 and 5 for H3. Each sub-hypothesis includes 3 sub-hypotheses adding up to a total of 48 sub-hypotheses. H1: Brand awareness differs with respect to demographic variables and usage for different fashion brands. H11: The students general awareness of the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H111, H112 and H113 test the general awareness of the brand with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H12: The students awareness of the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H121, H122 and H123 test the awareness of the brand with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H13: The students familiarity with the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H131, H132 and H133 test the familiarity of the brand with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic variables and usage of different fashion brands. H21: The brands expected performance differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H211, H212 and H213 test the expected performance of the brand with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H22: The brands offered value for price differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H221, H222 and H223 test the perception of the brands offered value for price with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H23: The brands reliability differ due to demographic variables and usage Sub-hypotheses H231, H232 and H233 tests the reliability of the brand with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

H24: The brands functionality differ due to demographic variables and usage Sub-hypotheses H241, H242 and H243 test the brands functionality with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H25: The brands usability differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H251, H252 and H253 test the brands usability with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H26: The brands durability differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H261, H262 and H263 test the brands durability with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H27: The brands technical sophistication differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H271, H272 and H273 test the brands technical sophistication with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H28: The perception of the brands expensiveness differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H281, H282 and H283 test the brands expensiveness with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic variables and usage of different fashion brands. H31: The brands making a person feel good differ due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H311, H312 and H313 tests the brands making a person feel good with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H32: The brands targeting low-income level differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H321, H322 and H323 test the brands targeting low-income level with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H33: The brands increasing the respectability of its user differ due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H331, H332 and H333 tests the brands increasing the respectability of its user with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H34: The brands being admired by the students friends and relatives differ due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H341, H342 and H343 test the brands being admired by the students friends and relatives with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively. H35: The brands expressing the students personality differs due to demographic variables and usage. Sub-hypotheses H351, H352 and H353 test the brands expressing the students personality with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

IV. METHODOLOGY
An exploratory study is designed to evaluate the brand knowledge of university students of different departments, ages, genders, grades and usage frequencies. A field study is performed regarding the brand awareness and brand image of the students with respect to nine international fashion brands and partial descriptive findings are reached. 1. Questionnaire A questionnaire is developed to measure the variables. The brand awareness was evaluated according to the approach of Aaker (1996) by the statements, I am generally aware of this brand, I am aware of this brand and I am familiar of this brand. For brand image, the scale of Kaplan (2007), which consisted of 13 items, was used (Figure 2). The brand awareness statements were translated into Turkish and then, together with the brand image statements, were formed into a 5-point Likert-scale construct (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). All translated statements were tested by 11 students and the translation was adapted into the Turkish meanings instead of the literal translation. In the first part of the questionnaire, the demographic variables, which include age, gender, department, grade, if they had ever shopped or frequently shop from the brands listed, were asked. The second part contained open-ended questions and it was asked to describe each brand by two or three words that come in to mind. The brand awareness and brand image questions were inquired in the third part. 2. Sample The survey was conducted at Izmir University of Economics in January 2009. Convenience sampling method was used in order to reach a heterogeneous group and a total of 201 undergraduate students from the total number of 10 different departments constructed the sample. The departments selected were Business Administration, Interior Design, Fashion Business, Translation and Interpretation Studies, Public Relations, Industrial Design, Fashion Design, Communication Design, Architecture and Logistics Management, of Izmir University of Economics. In selecting the departments, it was aimed to analyze the responses of different samples that were experienced in fashion or not. 3. Evaluation of the Results Data processing is maintained by the SPSS Program version 11. The hypotheses, which are based on multiple-choice questions, are analyzed by frequencies and t-tests. The answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed and counted manually.

V. FINDINGS
1. Profile of the Respondents The questionnaires were responded in January 2009 by 201 undergraduate students from 10 different departments of Izmir University of Economics. 63.7% of the students were female and 36.3% was male. 3%, 6 students, aged 18, 9%, 18 students aged 19, 13.4%, 27 students, aged 20, and 22.4%, 45 students, aged 21. The majority, 52.2% of the sample, was 22 years old and over, that were 105 students, shown in Table 2. 33 of the students, 16.4%, were at freshmen, 68, 33.8%, sophomore, 49, 24.4%, junior, and 51, 25.4%, at the senior (Table 1).
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Gender , n(%) Departments Business Administration Interior Design Fashion Business Translation and Interpretation Studies Public Relations Industrial Design Fashion Design Communication Design Architecture Logistics Management Total (n=201, 100%) Male 19 (54.3) 5 (45.5) 13 (39.4) 3 (16.7) 16 (50) 3 (33) 5 (12.5) 3 (50) 2 (28.6) 4 (40) 73 (36.3) Female 16 (45.7) 6 (54.5) 20 (60.6) 15 (83.3) 16 (50) 6 (67) 35 (87.5) 3 (50) 5 (71.4) 6 (60) 128 (63.7) 18 4 (22) 1 (3.1) 1 (2.5) 6 (3) 19 4 (11.4) 1 (9) 5 (28) 2(6.2) 2 (5) 1 (16.7) 3 (43) 18 (9)

Age, n(%) 20 5 (14.3) 3 (27.3) 3 (17) 1 (3.1) 1 (11.1) 9 (22.5) 1 (16.7) 1 (14) 3 (30) 27 (13.4) 21 9 (25.7) 4 (36.4) 4 (12) 2 (11) 6 (18.8) 3 (33.3) 10 (25) 3 (43) 4 (40) 45 (22.4) 22 and over 17 (48.6) 3 (27.3) 29 (88) 4 (22) 22 (68.8) 5 (55.6) 18 (45) 4 (66.6) 3 (30) 85 (42.3) 1 1 (2.9) 1 (9.1) 13 (72.2) 2 (6.2) 1 (11.1) 11 (27.5) 2 (33.3) 2 (20) 33 (16.4)

Grade, n(%) 2 6 (17.1) 8 (72.7) 9 (27.3) 1 (5.6) 8 (25) 1 (11.1) 19 (47.5) 3 (50) 7 (100) 6 (60) 68 (33.8) 3 22 (62.9) 1 (9.1) 5 (15.2) 2 (11.1) 3 (9.4) 5 (55.6) 9 (22.5) 1 (16.7) 1 (10) 49 (24.4) 4 6 (17.1) 1 (9.1) 19 (57.5) 2 (11.1) 19 (59.4) 2 (22.2) 1 (2.5) 1 (10) 51 (25.4)

Total (n=201 100%) n(%) 35 (17.4) 11 (5.5) 33 (16.4) 18 (9) 32 (15.9) 9 (4.5) 40 (19.9) 6 (3) 7 (3.5) 10 (5)

Table 1. Demographic Variables (Number of Students and Percentage).

The respondents shopped from at least one of the brands listed. The majority of the students have ever bought an item from Zara, Mavi, Koton, and Mango, respectively. The number of consumers for Lacoste and Diesel were the same. The students often shop from Zara, Mango, Mavi and Koton. The least preferred ones for habitual shopping are Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel, Lacoste, GAP, and Guess. For both of the questions, GAP and Guess were on the bottom line (Table 2).
Brands Zara Mavi Koton Mango Tommy Hilfiger Diesel Lacoste GAP Guess I have shopped from (n,%) 151 (75.1%) 150 (74.6%) 145 (72.1%) 131 (65.2%) 112 (55.7%) 107 (53.2%) 107 (53.2%) 95 (47.3%) 59 (29.4%) I have never shopped from (n,%) 50 (24.9%) 51 (25.4%) 56 (27.9%) 70 (34.8%) 89 (44.3%) 94 (46.8%) 94 (46.8%) 106 (52.7%) 142 (70.6%) I often shop from (n,%) 118 (58.7%) 85 (42.3%) 80 (39.8%) 106 (52.7%) 30 (14.9%) 48 (23.9%) 37 (18.4%) 42 (20.9%) 17 (8.5%)

Table 2. Usage Frequencies (Number of Students and Percentage). 3. Results of the Hypotheses Tests H1 aimed to reveal that there is a difference in brand awareness for different fashion brands within the demographic variables, which are departments and gender, and with usage frequency. For that, t-test was run and according to the results, p values lower than 0.05 showed that there was a significant difference. H11 was supported within Public Relations and Fashion Design departments for the brands Zara and Mango, and within Public Relations and Fashion Business departments for Zara that the students of these departments are more aware of these brands than the students from the other departments. It was supported among male and female students for the brands Zara, Guess, Mango and Koton (shown in Table 3). H12 was supported between gender for Zara, Guess, Mango, Koton, and Mavi that female students are more aware of these brands than male students. All the sub-hypotheses of H1 were supported for all brands due to consumption of the brands that a student, who has consumed a brand, has more knowledge about it than others. Thus, having consumed a brand increases the knowledge about it.

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

H11: I am generally aware of this brand. H111: Departments Public Relations-Fashion Design Zara Mango Fashion Business-Public Relations Zara H112: Gender Male-Female Zara Guess Mango Koton H113: Usage Tommy Hilfiger Gap Lacoste Diesel Zara Guess Mango Koton Mavi H12: I am aware of this brand. H122: Gender Male-Female Zara Guess Mango Koton Mavi H123: Usage Tommy Hilfiger Gap Lacoste Diesel Zara Guess Mango

Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test) Koton Mavi H13: I am familiar with this brand. t=- 2,247 p<0.05 H131: Departments t=- 2,057 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Design GAP Diesel Zara Guess Mango Koton t= 4,818 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Business t= 2,274 p<0.05 GAP Lacoste t= 3,895 p<0.05 Diesel t= 3,715 p<0.05 Guess t= 4,029 p<0.05 Public Relations-Fashion Design t= 5,005 p<0.05 Mango t= 5,610 p<0.05 Koton t= 2,683 p<0.05 Fashion Business-Fashion Design t= 4,317 p<0.05 Koton t= 4,277 p<0.05 Mavi t= 4,680 p<0.05 H132: Gender GAP Zara Guess t=2,019 p<0.05 Mango t=2,747 p<0.05 Koton t=3,914 p<0.05 Mavi t=2,581 p<0.05 H133: Usage t=2,403 p<0.05 Tommy Hilfiger Gap t= 2,708 p<0.05 Lacoste t= 3,241 p<0.05 Diesel t= 2,098 p<0.05 Zara t= 2,715 p<0.05 Guess t= 3,850 p<0.05 Mango t= 3,033 p<0.05 Koton t= 3,308 p<0.05 Mavi

t= 3,203 p<0.05 t= 2,659 p<0.05

t=-2,511 p<0.05 t=-2,087 p<0.05 t=-2,020 p<0.05 t=-2,630 p<0.05 t=-2,484 p<0.05 t=-2,049 p<0.05 t=-2,864 p<0.05 t=-2,347 p<0.05 t=-2,277 p<0.05 t=-2,252 p<0.05 t=-2,012 p<0.05 t= -2,042 p<0.05 t=-2,708 p<0.05 t=-2,270 p<0.05 t=3,137 p<0.05 t=4,313 p<0.05 t=3,253 p<0.05 t=9,187 p<0.05 t=5,177 p<0.05 t=2,647 p<0.05 t= 6,945 t= 4,365 t= 3,896 t= 5,267 t= 6,220 t= 4,827 t= 8,613 t= 6,550 t= 4,695 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05

Table 3. The comparative analyses of brand awareness and brand image with respect to the demographic variables.

The cognitive brand image among the demographic variables was hypothesized as H2, and except H24 among departments and H26 among genders, it was supported (Table 4). Therefore, there is no difference in perception of the brands functionality among the students from different departments. In addition, due to gender, there is no difference in the students evaluation of the brands as durable. It proposes that the male and female students equally perceive durability of a brand. The sub-hypotheses of H3, which aimed to evaluate the difference in the emotional brand image among the demographic variables, supported that emotional brand image differs with respect to the departments, gender and usage except H332 that there was no significant difference between gender for augmentation of respectability of its user. The supported hypotheses are shown in Table 5.

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)

H2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic variables for different fashion brands. H21: Perform as expected H211: Departments Fashion Business-Public Relations Diesel t=3,103 p<0.05 Zara t=2,211 p<0.05 Mango t=3,008 p<0.05 Fashion Design-Public Relations GAP t=3,575 p<0.05 Diesel t=2,575 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Business Diesel t=-2,496 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Design GAP t=2,700 p<0.05 Diesel t=1,999 p<0.05 Fashion Design-Fashion Business H212: Gender Gap t= 2,531 p<0.05 Zara t= 2,021 p<0.05 Guess t= 3,344 p<0.05 Mango t= 2,116 p<0.05 Koton t= 2,122 p<0.05 H213: Usage Tommy Hilfiger t= 6,106 p<0.05 Gap Lacoste Diesel Zara Guess Mango Koton Mavi H22: Offer value for price. H221: Departments Business Administration-Fashion Design Diesel Fashion Design-Fashion Business Tommy Hilfiger H222: Gender Gap Guess H223: Usage Tommy Hilfiger Gap Lacoste Diesel Zara Koton Mavi H24: Are functional. H242: Gender Mango H243: Usage Tommy Hilfiger Gap Lacoste Diesel Zara Mango Koton Mavi H25: Are usable. H251: Departments t= 2,667 t= 3,955 t= 5,202 t= 5,408 t= 4,494 t= 3,435 t= 5,295 t= 4,965 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 Business Administration- Public Relations Tommy Hilfiger Mango Business Adm.-Fashion Business Tommy Hilfiger Mango Business Adm.-Fashion Design Lacoste Diesel Mango H252: Gender Mango Koton Mavi H253: Usage Tommy Hilfiger Gap Lacoste Diesel Zara Guess Mango Koton Mavi H26: Are not durable. H261: Departments Business Administration-Public Relations Zara Fashion Design-Public Relations Tommy Hilfiger Business Administration-Fashion Business Zara Mango Koton Business Administration-Fashion Design Zara Mango H263: Usage Koton H27: Have technical sophistication. H271: Departments Fashion Design-Public Relations Tommy Hilfiger Business Administration-Fashion Business Mango Koton H272: Gender Guess H273: Usage. Tommy Hilfiger Gap Lacoste Diesel Guess Mavi H28: Are expensive H281: Departments Fashion Business-Public Relations Zara Koton Business Administration-Fashion Business Zara H282: Gender Koton H283: Usage Zara t=2,261 p<0.05 t=2,754 p<0.05 t=2,148 p<0.05 t=2,073 p<0.05 t=-2,074 p<0.05 t= -2,075 p<0.05 t=-2,261 p<0.05 t= 2,438 p<0.05 t= 2,630 p<0.05 t=2,078 p<0.05 t= 5,245 p<0.05 t= 5,350 p<0.05 t= 4,051 p<0.05 t= 2,614 p<0.05 t= 4,483 p<0.05 t= 2,261 p<0.05 t= 3,468 p<0.05 t= 4,139 p<0.05 t= 2,928 p<0.05

t=-2,068 p<0.05 t=-2,103 p<0.05 t=-2,294 p<0.05 t=-3,139p<0.05 t=-2,081p<0.05 t=2,196 p<0.05 t=2,106 p<0.05 t= -3,310 p<0.05

t=2,488 p<0.05 t=2,180 p<0.05 t= 2,863 p<0.05 t= 3,301 p<0.05 t= 5,099 t= 2,819 t= 4,534 t= 4,618 t= 5,232 t= 3,828 t= 3,993 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05

t=2,408 p<0.05 t=2,649 p<0.05 t=2,540 p<0.05 t= 2,426 p<0.05 t= 4,887 p<0.05 t= 4,263 p<0.05 t= 2,301 p<0.05 t= 2,975 p<0.05 t= 4,189 p<0.05 t= 3,230 p<0.05

t= 2,347 p<0.05 t= 3,168 t= 3,157 t= 2,711 t= 3,829 t= 3,852 t= 2,935 t= 2,299 t= 2,612 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05 p<0.05

t=-2,744 p<0.05 t=-2,329 p<0.05 t=3,564 p<0.05 t=-2,008 p<0.05 t=-2,947 p<0.05

Table 4. The comparative analyses of cognitive brand image with respect to the demographic variables.

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

10

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test) H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic H341: Departments variables for different fashion brands. Fashion Business-Public Relations H31: Make a person feel good. Koton H311: Departments Fashion Business-Public Relations Mavi Mango t=1,998 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Business Fashion Design-Public Relations Koton Zara t=2,188 p<0.05 Mavi H312: Gender Fashion Design-Fashion Business Zara t= 2,087 p<0.05 Tommy Hilfiger Guess t= 2,013 p<0.05 GAP Mango t= 3,395 p<0.05 Guess H313: Usage Koton Tommy Hilfiger t= 6,384 p<0.05 Mavi Gap t= 4,586 p<0.05 H342: Gender Lacoste t= 5,160 p<0.05 Zara Diesel t= 4,467 p<0.05 Mango Zara t= 5,345 p<0.05 H343: Usage Guess t= 3,507 p<0.05 Tommy Hilfiger Mango t= 4,620 p<0.05 GAP Koton t= 3,858 p<0.05 Mango Mavi t= 4,729 p<0.05 Koton H32: Target low-income level. Mavi H321: Departments Fashion Design-Public Relations H35: Express my personality. H351: Departments Mango t=2,886 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Fashion Business-Public Relations Business GAP t=-2,262 p<0.05 GAP Diesel t=-2,081 p<0.05 Diesel Mavi t=-2,971 p<0.05 Fashion Design-Public Relations Business Administration-Fashion Design Tommy Hilfiger Koton t=2,094 p<0.05 Zara Mavi t=2,300 p<0.05 Mango H322: Gender Koton Diesel t=-1,930 p<0.05 Business Administration-Fashion Business Mango t=2,545 p<0.05 Diesel H323: Usage H352: Gender Zara t=2,821 p<0.05 Gap Mango t=2,738 p<0.05 Diesel H33: Increase the respectability of its user. Zara H331: Departments Guess Fashion Business-Public Relations Mango Mango t=2,143 p<0.05 Koton Business Administration-Public Relations Mavi Mango t=2,080 p<0.05 H353: Usage H333: Usage Tommy Hilfiger Tommy Hilfiger t= 5,376 p<0.05 Gap Gap t= 5,174 p<0.05 Lacoste Lacoste t= 2,475 p<0.05 Diesel Diesel t= 3,421 p<0.05 Zara Guess t= 3,374 p<0.05 Guess Koton t= 2,077 p<0.05 Mango Mavi t= 2,636 p<0.05 Koton H34: Are admired by my friends and relatives. Mavi

t=-2,188 p<0.05 t=-3,558 p<0.05 t=3,139 p<0.05 t=2,400 p<0.05 t=2,294 p<0.05 t=2,163 p<0.05 t=2,031 p<0.05 t=2,575 p<0.05 t=2,168 p<0.05 t=2,111 p<0.05 t=3,272 p<0.05 t=2,795 p<0.05 t=2,130 p<0.05 t=4,269 p<0.05 t=4,025 p<0.05 t=4,599 p<0.05

t=2,343 p<0.05 t=2,617 p<0.05 t=2,126 p<0.05 t=2,464 p<0.05 t=2,506 p<0.05 t=2,626 p<0.05 t=-3,292 p<0.05 t=2,074 p<0.05 t=2,912 p<0.05 t=3,076 p<0.05 t=2,463 p<0.05 t=6,577 p<0.05 t=2,321 p<0.05 t=2,985 p<0.05 t= 6,971 p<0.05 t= 6,786 p<0.05 t= 5,415 p<0.05 t= 7,451 p<0.05 t= 5,927 p<0.05 t= 4,470 p<0.05 t= 6,683 p<0.05 t= 4,987 p<0.05 t= 5,262 p<0.05

Table 5. The comparative analyses of emotional brand image with respect to the demographic variables.

4. Results of the Open-Ended Questions Most of the respondents described the brands by their own words, which are grouped and listed in accordance with each statements frequency (shown in Table 6). The most repeated criteria were being an expensive brand or an inexpensive brand. On the other hand, for all brands, the most often repeated comments were quality, sportive, expensive and inexpensive. The brands and the frequency of mentioning these statements are shown on Figure 4. The students considered the brands Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Guess and Mavi as being expensive and having high quality. There were also students claimed Zara as an inexpensive brand. The other two inexpensive brands for the students were
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

11

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Mango and Koton. Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Diesel and Mavi were also sportive according to the students description.
Brands Statements
Expensive Tommy Hilfiger (Total Number of Respondents =140) High Quality Sportive Colors (Red, White, and/or blue) Products (Sweater and T-Shirt) Brand Sportive GAP (Total Number of Respondents = 128) Comfortable Expensive Products (Sweat shirt, Polar and T-Shirt) Basic High Quality Expensive High Quality Classic Crocodile Basic Products (Shirt, T-Shirt and Shoes) Expensive Stylish Products (Jeans and shoes High Quality Sportive Young Inexpensive Many Assortments Stylish High Quality Casual Form

n
40 19 15 14 4 4 28 18 14 12 7 6 27 27 19 11 11 5 44 38 16 15 8 6 33 19 17 12 6 3

%
28.6 13.6 10.7 10 2.9 2.9 21.9 14 11 9.4 5.5 4.7 19 19 13.4 7.8 7.8 3.5 30.7 26.6 11.2 10.5 5.6 4.2 23.4 13.5 12 8.5 4.3 2.1 Koton (Total Number of Respondents = 119)

Brands
Guess (Total Number of Respondents = 117)

Statements
Expensive Products (Bag, Shoes and Watch) Unnecessary High Quality Exaggeration Stylish Inexpensive For Women Low Quality Bazaar Design Many people have Inexpensive Assortment Low Quality Feminine High Quality Turkish Jeans Turkish Sportive High Quality Expensive Proper Price

n
27 20 14 7 6 6 44 14 12 10 8 5 25 10 8 7 6 3 32 17 13 11 10 9

%
23 17 12 6 5.1 5.1 33.6 10.7 9.2 7.6 6.1 3.8 21 8.4 6.7 5.9 5 2.5 24.4 13 10 8.4 7.6 6.8

Lacoste (Total Number of Respondents = 142)

Mango (Total Number of Respondents = 131)

Diesel (Total Number of Respondents = 143)

Zara (Total Number of Respondents = 141)

Mavi (Total Number of Respondents = 131)

Table 6.

Description of the Brands by the Respondents

DESCRIPTIONS, %

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 EXPENSIVE HIGH QUALITY INEXPENSIVE SPORTIVE

TH

G AP LA CO ST E DI ES E L ZA RA G U ES S M A NG O KO TO N
BRANDS

Figure 4. Description Frequencies of Brands

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

AV I

12

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

VI. CONCLUSION
Consumer demands are rapidly changing and getting similar to each other not only in a single country but also internationally. In order to be successful internationally, it is important to have a strong brand. In this paper, brand knowledge, which consists of brand awareness and brand image, of 9 international fashion brands was evaluated by a research among the Turkish university students. It is concluded that three variables, gender, departments and usage frequency have an effect on brand knowledge. The students, who were studying in Fashion Design and Fashion Business departments, had a little more knowledge of these brands than others. This slight difference could be as a result of advertising and communication activities. Not only people in the fashion business, but also others get some information about fashion brands willingly or not through promotions. Magazines, shopping centres and other consumers around could also provide such knowledge. This could also be an explanation for the knowledge about GAP, which recently entered into the Turkish market that had almost the same values as the other brands. The students might have accumulated information about GAP via TV, magazines, travels and so on. Therefore, it is important to consider these factors too while creating a successful fashion brand or entering into a new market. Comparison of the brand knowledge among genders revealed that the female students had more knowledge of the listed brands than the males. Furthermore, having consumed a brand leads to a significant effect on brand knowledge. Moreover, the brands Lacoste, Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel and Guess, which are positioned as luxury items in Turkey, were more likely to be described on a negative way, e.g. unnecessary, for middle-age and low quality, by non-users and positively, such as high quality and comfortable by users. The study has presented interesting outcomes regarding the perceptions of university students from different departments. The fashion brands aiming young consumers should consider brand knowledge, brand image and brand awareness impacts on their target segments. In a globalized world where local preferences are also playing an important role, brands act effectively in the development of the market demand. Brand knowledge is a key to evaluate in reaching the consumers and this study has proved the importance of empirical studies in this respect. Limitations and Further Research This study revealed the effects of demographic variables on brand knowledge by evaluating nine international fashion brands. It is noticed that the brand awareness statements, although they were not literally translated into Turkish, were difficult to be understood by the students since there was no strict line to describe them in Turkish. Therefore, for the further studies, it will be useful to describe what is aimed to gather through these statements in the native language instead of translating the exact statements. It is also purposeful to compare the brand knowledge of the same brands in different samples and different countries in future studies.

References
Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: Free Press. Aaker, D. A. 1996. Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press. Aaker, J. L. 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXIV (August 1997), 347-356. Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. 1990. Robust Measures of Consumer Brand Beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (November), 477-487.

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

13

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Chandon, P. 2003. Note on Measuring Brand Awareness, Brand Image, Brand Equity and Brand Value. March 2003, INSEAD Working Paper Series, http://library.nyenrode.nl/INSEAD/2003/2003-019.pdf , retrieved on 26 December 2008. Danesi, M. 2006. Brands. UK: Routledge. Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA. Del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. 2001. The Effects of Brand Associations on Consumer Response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 410-425. DiMingo, E. 1988. The Fine Art of Positioning. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 34-38. Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. 1990. In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 17: 110-119. Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. 2001. Brand Image? Pick a Measure, Any Measure. Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy 2001, Parmerston North, Department of Commerce, Massey University. http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Driesener.pdf , Retrieved on 26 December 2008. Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. 2006. Comparing Methods of Brand Image Measurement. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48, Issue 6. Frings, G. S. 1982. Fashion from Concept to Consumer, 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. 1955. The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33, MarchApril, pp. 33-39. Grubb, E.L. and Grathwol, H.L. 1967. Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism, and Market Behaviour: A theoretical Approach. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 22-27. Guedes, G. and da Costa Soares, P. 2005. Branding of Fashion products: a Communication Process, A Marketing Approach. Proceedings of the Association for Business Communication 7th European Convention, May 2005. Joyce, T. 1963. Techniques of Brand Image Measurement. in New Developments in Research, Market Research Society: London. Kapferer, J. 1994. Strategic Brand Management. New York: Free Press. Kaplan, M. D. 2007. Product Appearance and Brand Knowledge: An Analysis of Imperative Relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Izmir University of Economics. Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, (January 1993), 1-22. Keller, K. L. 2003. Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29. Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. 2005. Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities. Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 740-759. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. 2009. Marketing Management. 13th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

14

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009) July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA. Low, G. S. and Lamb Jr, C. W. 2000. The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand Associations. Journal of Product&Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 350-368. Moran, W.R. 1973. Why New Products Fail. Journal of Advertising Research, 5-13. Nandan, S. 2005. An Exploration of the Brand Identity-Brand Image Linkage: A Communications Perspective. Brand Management, Vol. 12, No.4, 264-278. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford Press: Oxford, UK. Packard, S., Winters, A.A. and Axelrod, N. 1983. Fashion Buying and Merchandising, 2nd edition. New York: Fairchild Publications. Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. 1986. Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, (October 1986), 135-145. Probst, G. JB, Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. 2001. Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success. John Wiley: Chichester, UK. Richards, I., Foster D. and Morgan, R. 1998. Brand Knowledge Management: Growing Brand Equity. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol:2, Issue 1, 47-54. Ross, S. D. 2006. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Spectator-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22-38. Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. 1987. Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Roth, M. S. 1995. The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of Global Brand Image Strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXII (May 1995), 163-175. Saviolo, S. 2002. Brand and Identity Management in Fashion Companies. DIR, Research Division SDA BOCCONI Working Paper No. 02-66. Sharif, A.M. 2004. Information, Knowledge and the Context of Interaction. The paper presented at EMCIS (European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems) 2008, on 25-26 May 2008, in Dubai. Sharp, B., Romaniuk, J. and Mackay, M.M. 1998. Displaying and Analysing Patterns in Perceptual Data, in Comparing Methods of Brand Image Measurement, Carl Driesener, and Jenni Romaniuk., 2006, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48, Issue 6. Sherry, J. E. 2005. Brand Meaning, in Alice M. Tybout and Tim Calkins (eds.), Kellogg on Branding: The Marketing Faculty of the Kellogg School of Management, John Wiley&Sons, Inc., pp. 40-72. Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth. Berret-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA. Wolfe, M. G. 2003. The World of Fashion Merchandising. Illinois: The Goodheart-Wilcox Company.

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem Cerit Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

15