CC BY
15
Terra Economicus, 2024, 22(1): 81-103 DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2024-22-1-81-103
Exploring brand equity assessment within consumer perception. Case of the jeans industry
Luisa Fernanda Hernández-Gallego
Pascual Bravo University Institution, Medellín, Colombia, e-mail: [email protected]
Manuela Escobar-Sierra
University of Medellin, Colombia, e-mail: [email protected]
Citation: Hernández-Gallego L.F., Escobar-Sierra M. (2024). Exploring brand equity assessment within consumer perception. Case of the jeans industry. Terra Economicus 22(1), 81-103. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2024-22-1-81-103
The adoption of institutionalist theory derived from Thorstein Veblen is justified by its capacity to confer legitimacy to the subject in an environment where symbolic economies guide exchange intentions. In this context, the fashion industry, grappling with challenges in acquiring new clients and enhancing management performance, seeks alternatives such as brand equity to foster profound symbolic relationships between fashion brands and consumers while conferring legitimacy to the consumer. This study contributes to the comprehension of fashion consumer perception, particularly in response to symbolic stimuli, by delving into the measurement of brand equity in jeans garments. Our methodology was guided by a comprehensive literature review, enabling the construction of a survey instrument to gauge fashion consumers' perceptions of brand equity. Subsequently, we collected a sample of857 university students from Medellín City, Colombia. The survey results underwent exploratory factor analysis, revealing that brand equity is instrumental in comprehending market dynamics within the fashion industry. We specifically focused on neotraditional, contemporary, and exhibitionist archetypes, highlighting their significance in purchasing jeanswear. These archetypes create symbolic associations between brands and products based on status, differentiation, and market acceptance. Essential consumer variables include popularity, rebuy intent, and social responsibility. These findings hold theoretical and managerial implications, shedding light on the intricate interplay between brand equity, consumer perceptions, and symbolic aspects in the fashion industry.
Keywords: sociology of consumption; brand equity; fashion industry; jeans apparel; exploratory factor analysis
JEL codes: M3; Y8, Y80
© Эрнанaес-Гаabего, M. Эско6ар-Сbерра, 2024
Оценка торговой марки в контексте ее восприятия потребителем (на примере джинсовой одежды)
Луиса Фернанда Эрнандес-Гальего
Университет Паскуаля Браво, Медельин, Колумбия, e-mail: [email protected]
Мануэла Эскобар-Сьерра
Университет Медельина, Колумбия, e-mail: [email protected]
Цитирование: Hernández-Gallego L.F., Escobar-Sierra M. (2024). Exploring brand equity assessment within consumer perception. Case of the jeans industry. Terra Economicus 22(1), 81103. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2024-22-1-81-103
Заложенная Торстейном Вебленом институциональная теория показала, что экономическим обменом может руководить символическое значение предмета обмена. В этом отношении компании, работающие в сфере моды, ввиду стремления привлечь новых клиентов и повысить эффективность управления, обращают внимание на способы увеличить ценность торговой марки, тем самым упрочивая символические отношения между модным брендом и потребителем. Наше исследование направлено на то, чтобы улучшить понимание процессов, связанных с восприятием моды потребителями, в особенности в ответ на стимулы символической природы. Мы сосредоточились на измерении ценности торговой марки на примере брендов джинсовой одежды. Обзор литературы послужил теоретико-методологической основой для разработки инструментария, который позволил провести оценку восприятия потребителями тех или иных торговых марок модной одежды. Опрос охватил выборку из 857 студентов университетов г. Медельин, Колумбия. Факторный анализ результатов опроса показал, что оценка торговой марки играет важную роль в понимании рыночной динамики в индустрии моды. Мы уделили особое внимание таким архетипам как неотрадиционный, современный и ориентированный на создание эффектного образа, подчеркнув их значение при выборе джинсовой одежды. Эти архетипы образуют символические ассоциации между торговой маркой и товаром на основе статуса, дифференцирования и рыночного признания. Важнейшими переменными, связанными с восприятием потребителя, являются популярность, намерение совершить повторную покупку и социальная ответственность. Результаты значимы как с теоретической точки зрения, так и в плане управленческих процессов, поскольку проясняют сложную взаимосвязь между ценностью торговой марки, восприятием ее потребителями и символическими аспектами в индустрии моды.
Ключевые слова: социология потребления; ценность торговой марки; индустрия моды; джинсовая одежда; факторный анализ
Introduction
The fashion industry shows some needs related to management performance, facing difficulties in achieving new clients. Hence, brand equity appears as an alternative to enable deep relationships in symbolic aspects between fashion brands and consumers. The context in which we settle is Medellín, Colombia because this city's primary income comes from the fashion industry chain, contributing to the country's GDP1
1 Banco de la República (2021). Informe de política monetaria, p. 130. https://www.banrep.gov.co/sites/default/files/paginas/amjd_ marzo_2021.pdf
(Carbono López, 2021). Brand equity facilitates the practice and efficiency of scholars and practitioners to comprehend consumer perception, brand, and its relevance in fashion due to diverse associations made by clients to brand features (Arnett et al., 2003; Davis et al., 2009; Valette-Florence et al., 2011). Some relevant characteristics that brand equity stands out for fashion brands are brand image, stimuli, quality, and awareness, among others, in symbolic aspects representing benefits for fashion consumers (Cho et al., 2015; Raut et al., 2019). Those features of brand equity for the fashion context in Medellín allow us to select the path of messages and communications impact to catch client attention and strengthen loyalty to brands symbolically (Rahman et al., 2021b; Rindell and Santos, 2021).
The fashion phenomenon's main feature is its dynamism in dressing the body and consuming artifacts. We identify a gap in articulating fashion, management, and marketing, particularly in the effort made by managers, which avoid the symbolic aspects, communications, and stimuli that garments generate in fashion consumers conduct to purchase (Quintas-Froufe and Quintas-Froufe, 2010; Hsiao et al., 2020; Koivisto and Mattila, 2020; Llovet Rodríguez, 2016; Wu et al., 2020). Attending to the multiple needs and problem, we focus on symbolic aspects of fashion and garments (Collett et al., 2013; Hsiao et al., 2020). Moreover, brand equity contributes to reducing management gap by studying fashion consumers in Medellin city.
This is due to the need for more knowledge about the relevance of symbolic aspects for the fashion industry (Barthes, 1978; Peirce, 1974), particularly for consumers. We consider the application of brand equity in the process of comprehension from practitioners and scholars of management about fashion consumers, and measuring it through brand equity is an alternative to fill the gap (Kim et al., 2019). In addition, we recognize that the symbolic aspects result in complex translations in strategies and sales for managers. However, those aspects are essential to activate the purchase intention of consumers (Collett et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2019). We decided to study the incidence of garment signs in fashion marketing; in this sense, we want to explore the brand equity measure of fashion consumers' perception in the jeans apparel industry. We mainly focus on the Medellin-Colombia fashion market because we did not find empirical evidence of measuring brand equity punctually in the jeans industry related to consumers' perceptions, which is an opportunity to perform a relevant study to feed the available knowledge.
Brand equity improves symbolic relations where consumers feel represented by fashion brands' discourse (Aaker, 1996b; Raut et al., 2019). Hence, brand equity allows practitioners to reduce management inefficiencies when creating value, and comprehending this concept from a consumer perspective is a guide to proposing strategies (Gómez and Pérez, 2018; Tasci, 2021; Wood, 2000). As well, positive associations given by brand equity generated consumer ease management. However, it is essential to measure and manage results with a reliable instrument (Quan et al., 2020).
Thus, brand equity experts mention emergent concepts to help others comprehend them; scholars recommend some categories to understand the benefits of brands, such as awareness, positive associations, brand image, and quality (Kotler and Keller, 2012; Leuthesser et al., 1995). In this sense, the brand equity approach to explaining human behavior and purpose archetypes helps build brand identity (Castro et al., 2006). The pillars identified among all conceptual proposals are differentiation, attitude, and brand knowledge (Ailawadi et al., 2003; Whan Park et al., 2010). For example, attitude segmentation measures the latent variable of attitude, which is observable in consumers. Another proposal is a price premium to measure perceived quality, indicating consumers' perception of the product (Ailawadi et al., 2003; Huang et al., 2014).
Consumers' perceptions and awareness become the main target of brand equity (Raut et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2012; Zarfino, 2010). The measure implications help management performance; also, a survey for brand equity could inform their dimensions (Davis et al., 2009). The brand equity index is also valuable because it explains consumer perception and enables practitioners to make better decisions in the short term and plan strategies in the long term. Therefore, it is necessary to perform brand equity measurements in fashion to improve market development.
Furthermore, the information on brand equity directs us to understand it as a conceptual focus on the client's perception of brand value (Aaker, 1996b). One of the relevant aspects of this concept is that it allows consumers to connect with brands in a symbolic sense (Whan Park et al., 2010). This discovery is one of the central values of brand equity because, in the economic field, no one focuses on the intangible attributes, which means enriching the symbolic content of brands to strengthen the relationship with users (Gómez and Pérez, 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Obiegbu et al., 2020; Xara-Brasil
et al., 2018). We identify that brand equity still has potential, particularly in the fashion industry, where the symbolic aspect is not fully developed. In this sense, approaching to measure this concept allows us to comprehend fashion brands' tangible and symbolic features (Aaker, 1996b); it also helps us understand the influence of brand equity in consumer perception of jeans apparel.
Moreover, proposing an instrument to measure brand equity can elevate marketing impact in the fashion industry because we will know consumer perception of fashion brands (Horstmann, 2017; Perez and Bairon, 2013; Tranaviciüté, 2020). Some relevant concepts associated with brand equity are loyalty, quality perception, and fashion awareness as an approach to the consumer (Aaker, 1996b); those insights lead us to recognize the importance of applying, understanding, and measuring brand equity in the fashion industry. In the identification process, we detect a latent need to know and measure consumers' perceptions about the symbolic associations of brands. Solving this need should help us predict purchase decisions and product performance (Hunt, 2010). Furthermore, the Medellín fashion industry represents an attractive context for research and measuring brand equity because it is a growing market, especially in jeans production. Hence, we turn to a segmented sample of fashion consumers of Medellín. In other words, the selection focuses on three consumers' archetypes (Ganassali and Matysiewicz, 2021; Jung, 1970).
On the other hand, scholars mainly use SEM and PLS; these techniques help measure constructs through observable variables, incidences, and correlations (Baah et al., 2021; Matzler et al., 2007). Despite the lack of tools in the literature, the authors encouraged us to explore some ideas of the type of questions we can use for brand equity measures (Aaker, 1996b). Among all Aaker's insights, we highlight (1) does this brand have personality?, and (2) have you ever listened to this brand?
Following the conceptual background, we propose an instrument and a measurement model to comprehend fashion consumers' perceptions about jeans brands' benefits. Moreover, we consider concepts such as brand awareness, differentiation, communications, loyalty, and archetypes (Aaker, 1996a; Keller et al., 2015; Leuthesser et al., 1995). Also, we consider the jeans apparel industry, characterized by the use of denim as a primal fabric, and the silhouette is flexible2 (Giraldo and Aparicio, 2016). Consequently, we triangulate these variables with three common consumer archetypes named neotraditional, contemporary, and exhibitionist, which we will describe later (Cho et al., 2015; Collett et al., 2013; Goldsmith et al., 1994; Horstmann, 2017; Jung, 1970; Li et al., 2013). Furthermore, we prioritize measuring consumer perception of brand impact and symbolic associations due to the lack of tools created for the fashion industry (Aaker, 1996a; Aaker, 1997). In other words, we want to avoid fashion, management, and marketing inefficiencies by measuring clients' perceptions of value in garment representation (Arai et al., 2013). To create the instrument, we try to increase available information on the concept using a literature review, and we complement it with empirical testing among jeanswear buyers from Medellín.
In this context, our research focuses on creating a measurement instrument of brand equity, and we try to support our decision in the research process; that is why we present the report of the achievements in this text. Furthermore, we found that measuring brand equity might provide tangible and symbolic insights for practitioners and researchers (Bridson and Evans, 2004). Our contribution is oriented to fulfil the lack of theoretical and empirical studies of brand equity in the fashion industry located in the Medellín context. We structure our manuscript as follows. Initially, we offer a general context in the introduction. In the following section, we introduce a brand equity theoretical framework. We describe the methodology that leads us to present our results. In the next section, we offer the literature review, the constructs, and the measurement model. Then, we develop the discussion with other authors. Finally, we feature the conclusions, limitations, and references.
Theoretical background
General context
Initially, the institutionalist theory was adopted for the theoretical frameworks, mainly drawn from Veblen's (2000) work on the leisure class. We chose this because Veblen's text provides insights into marketing, clothing, and symbols, considering them influential factors in specific contexts. The
2 SURA (2014). Informe sectorial sistema moda. Estrategias Comerciales, pp. 7-12. https://www.sura.com/estrategiasComerciales/ documentos/pdf/informeSectorial-sistemaModa.pdf (accessed on September 9, 2022)
adoption of institutionalist theory from Veblen is justified by its ability to confer legitimacy to the subject in an environment where the economy of symbols guides exchange intentions. It allows individuals to showcase or imitate the power bestowed upon them through social validation, demonstrating authority, power, or influence. This establishes a social structure that assign status based on one's role, thereby facilitating the integration of disciplinary studies on marketing strategies and clothing symbols.
In Veblen's framework, social dynamics operate on various levels, emphasizing the importance of market dynamics, social roles, and the representation of individuals through clothing for meaningful interactions. The consumption and choice of attire become crucial elements for individuals to achieve interaction and social mobility, symbolizing their economic status.
Specifically, institutionalist theory aids in comprehending the individual, clothing symbols, and the economic backdrop. This theory is enriched by the science of semiotics to delve into the nature of signs, their structures, and the linguistic model, drawing on Peirce's approach (Peirce, 1974). Additionally, the perspective on the market and consumer behavior is enhanced by incorporating the theory of selective attention, which posits that consumers pay heightened attention to specific products when stimuli align with context, imaginaries, and consumer desires (Broadbent, 1958). Furthermore, the project incorporates the symbolic interactionism theory, proposing using a sign system for individuals to communicate intentions within a social context (Simmel, 1950).
In addition, we approach the concept of clothing from a symbolic and communicative perspective rather than focusing on its functional aspects. Scholars suggest a reexamination of its meaning. For instance, researchers characterize clothing as an expression of social habits and traditions (Riello, 2001). Simultaneously, clothing is integral to individuals' social lives, empowering them to represent a particular social status in a given context (Goux, 2011). Moreover, within the realm of economic reasoning, clothing mirrors social values (Gómez, 2011; Jiménez Gómez, 2008) as it serves as both a product and an artefact crafted by individuals to fulfil human and symbolic needs (Baudrillard, 2009).
In economics and management, academics and practitioners study the process where consumers establish emotional bonds with brands, leading experts to create new ways to link them with new proposals or brand values (Rahman et al., 2021a). In this sense, brand equity appears as a construct that allows consumers to create relations with brands in symbolic aspects due to their perception of product features (Wood, 2000). Consequently, we present the main approaches to the brand equity concept.
Authors' approach to brand equity
Brand equity refers to the identity and value of a brand or organization that consumers perceive as attractive; spectators receive a message and build a relationship. However, it is more complex; brand equity reinforces brand attributes in client perception through symbolic meanings of brand products or services (Elliott, 1999). The symbolic perspective of brand equity presents implications for practitioners because consumers search for identity and bonds through the symbolic charge of goods (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998). Therefore, signs and symbols have been considered relevant in business transactions due to their immaterial attributes and difficulty measuring a symbol (Law et al., 2012).
In this sense, we found that the brand equity concept was born in the 1980s, and the pioneer is Lance Leuthesser. This author proposes that brand equity directly influences consumers' knowledge about brands and influences their responses (Leuthesser et al., 1995), helping us comprehend their perceptions. Additionally, differentiation is essential in brand equity to affect customers' expectations (Leuthesser et al., 1995; Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997).
Leuthesser mentions other factors, such as knowledge, because consumers must know brands' attributes and features (Leuthesser, 1997). In his proposal, the consumer response reflects the desire to allow brands to generate loyalty, and one of the main tactics to attract consumers is promotion because it makes them closer to brands hoping to develop loyalty, among other attitudes (Leuthesser, 1997). The elements mentioned represent the first equity stage, particularly brand vision and identity. Additionally, Leuthesser's effort to define the pillars conducts to comprehend value exchange and communication to consolidate a brand's perception. The last element is brand performance, including brand loyalty and price premium. In Leuthesser's (1997) proposal, we recognize the intention to catch and preserve consumers and the necessity of evaluating customers willing to pay
the price to indicate quality, status, and a symbolic representation. Hence, the main recommendation by the author is to go beyond instrumental practices in the brand equity study involving the lifestyle and beliefs of consumers in brand practices.
Another relevant exponent of brand equity is Kevin Keller, who proposed that brand equity is product value, which eludes brand discourse and approach to consumption practice. In contrast to Leuthesser, Keller centers on the product, saying that brand equity generates value and reflects in consumers' feelings (Keller et al., 2015; Kotler and Keller, 2012). He approaches consumer-based brand equity and the effect of brand knowledge produced on consumer response (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The consumer perspective is essential for brands to know consumer power through time. Keller emphasizes clients' perception of brand differences and consumers' responses to brand knowledge, perception, behavior, and preferences (Kotler and Keller, 2012); this leads us to conduct our approach to the perception of fashion consumers. We can see those elements in brand promises, where experts envision what brands should become for consumers, creating brand representations (Keller et al., 2015; Kotler and Keller, 2012).
Furthermore, Kotler and Keller (2012) illustrate some practitioners' applications of brand equity. For example, the BRANDASSET model supported differentiation to measure consumer perception of diverse attributes. In addition, brand attractiveness is one of the valuable features that drew customers' attention, enhancing brand equity performance. Also, Keller mentions a second model named BRANDZ; this model presents sequential steps to achieve brand equity performance (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The first step is the presence, understood as a visualization that helps organizations get closer to consumers, allowing brands to transcend. The authors' proposal on the first stage will enable managers to develop beliefs in consumers for brands. Then, in addition to presence and faith, emotional bonds create market advantages for brands to become competitive (Kotler and Keller, 2012). Finally, the bond where consumers establish rational and emotional attachments with brands and consequences involves consumer perceptions of symbolic features. The purpose of the models is to help brands differentiate in the market. Significantly, Kotler and Keller (2012) determine that brand equity arises when customers know how to differentiate brands according to their attributes and benefits.
On the other hand, one of the most representative authors on brand equity is David Aaker (1996a). His proposal suggests the Likert scale to measure the brand equity concept. Initially, Aaker said that brand equity is a way to create value and hold it on time. He recommends considering price premiums to indicate customers' loyalty to brands. Price premiums give information about consumers' willingness to pay. Another relevant aspect is the perceived quality, which helps measure brand equity under the client's perception of the product and its attributes (Aaker, 1996b).
Aaker suggests considering leadership and popularity to measure brand equity due to consumers' perception and their effect on brand behavior. On the contrary, he determines that associations are among the most vital indicators for measuring brand equity. Consumers perceive value, brand personality, and organizational associations as appealing to symbolic imaginaries of fashion clients. Aaker's proposals are oriented to the symbolic aspects of brands and products that influence clients' responses. Awareness influences consumer perceptions and attitudes toward fashion brands. Finally, Aaker mentions that market behavior refers to market share, price, and distribution due to these elements affecting brands' performance.
Consequently, other authors worked on the brand equity concept, which refers to brand characteristics that add or subtract the value of products (Yoo et al., 2000). Initially, brand equity helps consumers know its value from the consumer's point of view, leading them to make decisions (Baker and Sinkula, 1999). J. Aaker (1997) says that brand equity refers to symbolic aspects of brands because consumers give intangible personalities and attributes to brands to create a bond with products and services. Later, Rahman et al. (2021a) suggested paying attention to consumer-based brand equity. The study shows that brand experiences and cultural intelligence influence consumers' responses to stimuli. The authors' proposals lead us to think that the social aspects of clients determine their relationship with brands. Hence, Tasci (2021) says that consumer-based brand equity focuses on perception categories such as familiarity, image, perceived quality, consumer value, and brand loyalty. Brand equity relates to consumers' symbolic, social, and cultural aspects (Moorman and Rust, 1999).
Notably, consumers establish a relationship between brand equity and fashion when they make symbolic associations with brands (Jayasuriya, 2022). Furthermore, brand equity occurs when sym-
bolic associations consolidate consumer knowledge (Sharma, 2020). Consequently, the brand image is reflected in consumers' self-image. Moreover, the products reflect consumers' identity and self-expression (Seliani and Pratomo, 2019).
In the relationship process between brand equity and fashion, we recognize in the literature that marketing incorporates signs in strategic deployment; however, positive or negative interpretation of signs depends on consumer perception (Sari et al., 2022). Hence, this work recognizes fashion consumers' perceptions and their interpretations of garment signs to make purchase decisions. Thus, brand equity dimensions of associations are essential for brands because signs allow managers and fashion brands to focus on management and marketing activities to generate memories in consumers' minds (Kewenter and Galkin, 2021).
We should remember that brand equity influences consumer perception just as consumers' behavior. Notably, this work approaches the symbolic scenario that is part of the associations' category (Keller and Brexendorf, 2019; Kewenter and Galkin, 2021). Moreover, brand equity in fashion provides competitive advantages for companies, making them respond quickly to fashion trends (Shar-ma, 2020). In this sense, fashion consumers bond with styles, trends, and products (Cho et al., 2018).
Consequently, brand equity mediates the relationship between brands and fashion, especially from consumers' symbolic associations; this leads brands to construct themselves to provide social signs to consumers (Pool et al., 2018). In the value and signs delivery between consumers, the brand equity must face the typology of clients such as sensorial ones, which search assert themselves through he-donic stimuli that brands offer (Venkatraman and Price, 1990). In other words, the value that brand equity gives to fashion consumers from symbolic associations is external, from product signs that enable the consumer to receive admiration, putting them in a spot of superiority. At the same time, internally, fashion products give status and exclusiveness feeling (Kuusela, 2021). Studying consumer perceptions and their symbolic associations enriches brand equity centers in consumers. Thus, managers and researchers could distinguish and classify fashion consumers more assertively.
We consider literature on brand equity to construct a measurement instrument in this context. Academic ideas lead us to question consumer perception concerning fashion brands and products: (1) do consumers perceive brand value through brand equity; (2) do consumers pay attention to products when they are aware of a fashion brand; (3) whether brand equity allows consumers to make symbolic associations with fashion brands to guarantee a bond. Moreover, we conduct a mixed-method approach to determine the relationship between brand equity and fashion mediated by consumer perceptions.
Methodology
We oriented our methodology through a literature review to obtain referents (Donthu et al., 2021), which allowed us to construct an instrument to measure fashion consumers' perceptions of brand equity. We identify the literature material and acquire and organize the texts by brand equity content to pursue our goal. Later, we filter texts and choose the relevant ones to report the information later (Paul et al., 2021).
Additionally, to organize and analyze the data, we identify the purpose; later, we review construct behavior and prepare test specifications. Furthermore, we extract statistical properties and apply reliability and validity proofs. Finally, we finish by interpreting the scores (Crocker and Algina, 2006).
We collect a peculiar sample for our research. Initially, we segmented the respondents as fashion consumers of jeans. Then, we classify them into three consumer archetypes; this word refers to a model that functions to copy as a referent of perfection related to something. Hence, the fashion industry is not an exception, so we recognize three archetypes. The neotraditional one is characterized for being a person with a classic style that includes new visions (Caldwell et al., 2010; Jung, 1970). The contemporary archetype evolves with new dynamics and proposals (Caldwell et al., 2010; Maloney, 1999). The exhibitionist archetype presents an orientation for extravagance and trends (Baker et al., 2019; Lee and Jung, 2020).
Likewise, we fit the consumers' archetypes into university students. We mainly collect the sample in private and public universities, reaching 857 answers. Moreover, we include in our instrument the primary constructs found in the literature to comprehend the observable variables and consumer perception of brand equity through the measurement instrument. Table 1 presents our methodology design next to the technical details.
Table 1
Methodology design
Criteria Qualitative approach Quantitative approach
Role of the theory Inductive Deductive
Research strategy Case study
Unit of analysis Constructs
Sample 53 Documents - 9 primary documents from Scopus database 857 university students from Medellin City3
Variables Characterize the constructs and observable variables Participants' perceptions of constructs
Data analysis Literature review and content analysis4 Exploratory factor analysis (Crocker and Algina, 2006)
Source: authors
In summary, we execute our analysis in IBM SPSS software, where we interpret the numerical values to achieve the reliability and validity of our created instrument in the specific case of Medellin.
Results
Medellin City is recognized as a fashion and textile producer in Colombia, which is why we center on this industry5 (Carbono Lopez, 2021). Hence, we identify the opportunity to study brand equity and settle on the context by creating a measurement instrument of brand equity. Consequently, we initiate the qualitative approach to continue with the quantitative one. In interpreting the results, we choose the KMO, a measure of adequacy that helps to know if the instrument suits well (Baah et al., 2021). Consequently, we use Cronbach Alpha, a reliability measure, to analyze whether the instrument meets the required consistency. Those indices allow us to establish the reliability and validity of the instrument (Baah et al., 2021). As we present our methodology, we start identifying the purpose we offer next.
Identify the purpose
A few studies center on a measurement instrument in brand equity, especially to know consumer perception about symbolic aspects. Furthermore, it is expected to find available literature on measure models focused on miscellaneous brand equity, such as perceived quality, price, and brand image (Aaker, 1996b). In this sense, we aim to measure variables about symbolic brand equity issues through consumer perception. Our research approaches to studying and comprehending brand equity with symbolic associations consumers perceive in a fashion context. In this sense, we explore how to measure brand equity in the jeanswear fashion industry in Medellin. Hence, we comprehend the brand equity concept and its observable variables to construct and apply the instrument in the field.
Identify the behavior of the constructs
In our path to consolidate a measuring instrument, we conducted a literature review. We contrast our findings with the authors' ideas, and they clarify that a construct is a concept product of an informed imagination, explaining human behavior (Crocker and Algina, 2006). Usually, tests help researchers to measure constructs through visible indicators. To perform brand equity measurement, we conducted a literature review and recognized the constructs' order and their associated variables. We start with the scholars' proposals around the brand equity construct, and we finish with a synthesis of the authors' proposals, the techniques they used, and the constructs they performed. In this sense Feldwick (1996) says that brand equity has three uses:
3 For a minimum viable sample, we followed suggestions by Hair et al., 2019.
4 Literature review and content analysis were guided by Barari et al. (2020) and Crocker and Algina (2006).
5 Banco de la República as cited above.
• The brand value groups the total of measurable aspects of brands.
• Brand strength measures the strength of clients' attachment.
• Brand description and is associated with consumer beliefs.
Feldwick (1996) takes data from the market, relative prices, behavioral measures from purchase frequency, and product evaluations to measure these uses. In addition, Leuthesser and Kohli (1997) mention the halo effect. This effect is a distortion of the measurement scale. Applying the halo effect on brand equity helps produce a bidirectional relation between beliefs and attitudes. In other words, attitude may generate consumer beliefs about brands. Moreover, this is important because Van Osselaer and Alba (2000) mention that some consumer responses are not conditioned and are intuitive. These findings help us project a consumer response prediction.
Besides, Ailawadi et al. (2003) determined that consumer and business-based brand equity share the same goal: increasing income, cash flow, and profit. The authors propose an income premium to measure brand equity because it is flexible around context changes such as price and market. However, we found more information about consumer-based brand equity in the literature. In this sense, Buil et al. (2013), who studied brand equity and consumer response, say that brand equity depends on perceived quality. Hence, quality leads consumers to value brands. Buil et al. (2013) conclude that brand equity improves clients' relationships and positive value over brands.
Another perspective of consumer-based brand equity is the proposal by Yoo and Donthu (2001). The authors say psychometric scales are optimal for measuring brand equity and help comprehend clients' cognitive value of brands. Those scales help practitioners to evaluate brands' performance. However, Chandon (2003) mentions the pyramid knowledge, including brand awareness, associations, favorable valuations, and active loyalty. Those classifications allow measuring consumer perceptions. Moreover, those proposals enable us to validate our categories and observable variables.
In the review, we identify that brand equity presents different models; in general, brand equity models are the cost-based method, the method based on market value for organizations, the financial method, and the consumer-based method. However, above all methods, we focus on the last one, mainly interpreting (Aaker, 1996a; 1996b; Aaker, 1997) approach and focus on consumer perception of brand equity in garment signs. Moreover, as we present next, we analyze and recreate the Aaker model for our specific case, as the Figure below depicts.
Source: authors
Fig. Interpretation of Aaker's model
Particularly in Aaker's (1996a) model, we pay special attention to the dimensions we use to delimit our instrument because we are interested in consumer perception. Furthermore, we performed a literature review, compiling primary documents extracted from Scopus that provided information about brand equity measures. In this review, we focus on the technique used by chosen authors to measure brand equity and the constructs we present in Table 2.
Table 2
Results of the literature review
Author Technique Constructs
Feldwick, 1996 Literature review Brand value
Brand strength, e.g., loyalty, awareness, quality, and other associations
Feldwick, 1996 Model review Beliefs
Attitudes
Attributes
Associations
Ailawadi et al., 2003 Brand equity correlations review Attitude
Awareness
Picture
Knowledge
Chandon,2003 Method review Satisfaction
Leadership
Perceived value
Brand personality
Brand associations
Organizational associations
Brand awareness
Van Osselaer and Alba, 2000 Experimental design Product features description
Instinctive attributes
Yoo and Donthu, 2001 Theory review Consumer willingness, e.g., profit
Sustainable competitive advantage, e.g., cash flow
Product
Buil et al., 2013 Conceptual model Brand awareness, e.g., recognition and familiarity
Associations, e.g., perceived value, brand personality, and organizational associations
Valette-Florence et al., 2011 Conceptual model Promotion intensity, e.g., perceived sales
Brand personality, e.g., amiability, awareness, sophistication, fallacy, and introversion
Brand equity, e.g., brand social values, brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality
Symbolic associations
Aaker, 1996a Brand equity measures Loyalty
Perceived quality
Associations
Awareness
Tuominen, 1999 Literature review Brand awareness, e.g., recognition and remembrance
Brand image, e.g., associations, the strength of associations, favorability of the associations, and unique associations
Tuominen, 1999 Case study Athletic expertise
Competition style
Sportsmanship
Rivalry
Physical attractiveness
Symbol
Body fitness
Life story
Model to follow
Effort in relationships
Tuominen, 1999 Service case Brand equity
Brand awareness
Brand image
Source: authors
This review helps us identify the constructs, the observable variables, and the most popular techniques to measure the brand equity construct. Moreover, we use that information to present the following results.
Prepare test specifications
We created test specifications for measurement instruments. In this sense, we present multi-dimensional constructs extracted from literature (Castro et al., 2006). Moreover, our model has multiple constructs: first-order, second-order, and third-order. Following the authors' proposals about brand equity constructs, our model presents multidimensional constructs and is helpful for the theory because this type of model gives more context and can perform reflective or formative correlations (Wetzels et al., 2009). Moreover, a model with multidimensional constructs related between them is more valid and reduces theoretical complexity from a functional aspect (Bagozzi et al., 2013).
Consequently, we use the brand equity (Aaker, 1996a) proposal for the test specifications and extract the first, second, and third-order constructs. For example, our first-order construct is brand equity, and from Aaker, (1996a) we took the second-order constructs such as loyalty, perceived quality, brand image, and awareness. At the same time, we take the archetype construct from Arai et al. (2013). The order of constructs of brand equity is presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Ordered constructs of brand equity
First-order construct Second-order constructs Third-order constructs
Brand equity Loyalty Loyalty
Brand equity
Brand image Associations
Symbols
Life story
Brand awareness Awareness
Archetype Role model
Fitness
Physical attractiveness
Rivalry
Sportsmanship
Competition style
Experience
Source: authors
It is essential to recognize the observable variables for each construct. This recognition helps us to design a complete instrument. Below, we present the identification of the visible variables in Appendix 1. Test specifications constructs and observable variables.
The initial pool of items
Moreover, we use (Aaker, 1996a) and other authors' proposals to build the initial pool of items. However, not all the constructs suit the specific case of jeans apparel and the archetypical consumers; for that reason, we select the most concordant observable variables. Consequently, we continue the questionnaire writing to the literature review and identify the observable variables in Appendix 2, which shows the initial pool of items. In this sense, we took the most representative visible variables proposed by the authors, and we offer the following questions for each construct and variable. After we perform our questionnaire writing process, we follow the reviewing phase, where we involve some academics and practitioners to acquire their opinions and suggestions about the questions.
Review the items
Consequently, we submitted our questionnaire for linguistic verification from experts (Crocker and Algina, 2006). Moreover, we considered the order of the questions and tried to correspond to the observable variables.
Make a preliminary test
In particular, we conduct a tryout with four academic peers from Medellín University and thirty students from Pascual Bravo University and Medellín University (Crocker and Algina, 2006). In this context, we consider a preliminary test with a piece of the sample to check the questionnaire from the perspective of time to answer, verbal tome of the questions, grammar, and drive a common language for the young respondents.
Perform a field-test
In the field test, we clarified that this study collects the necessary answers using information tools due to the pandemic context we have been through; the primary tools were Google Forms, virtual classes, e-mail, and social media to share the questionnaire with our interest sample. Additionally, we followed the proposal of Hair et al. (2019) when he mentioned that every sample should have a 5:1 ratio (Hair et al., 2019). The sample ratio means that if we have 40 questions, we must collect 200 answers. Consequently, we collect 857 responses from jeanswear buyers between 20 and 30 years old. The sample characteristics of fashion consumers allow us to have a significant study. Our empirical contribution is oriented to the lack of evidence of brand equity performance in fashion, specifically with neotradi-tional, contemporary, and exhibitionist consumer profiles who purchase jeans garments.
Determine statistical properties
In this part, we follow an exploratory factor analysis of a statistical model representing the relationship between variables (Hair et al., 2019). This analysis typically explains the relations through latent variables named factors. The exploratory factor analysis includes statistical procedures to study new dimensions of a scientific problem (Howard, 2016). Furthermore, we implement the exploratory factor analysis to find new latent dimensions of our research problem. As we said before, we apply a questionnaire through observable variables to measure the brand equity construct.
We use the IMB SPSS® software, which helps us process data. For the use of the software, we configure factor extraction. In this part, we choose the maximum likelihood based on the eigenvalue. Next, in rotation, we put Promax. Then, in factorial punctuation, we selected the coefficient matrix. Finally, we suppressed small coefficients in the option, and our absolute value was 0.3. Once the initial configuration was ready, we applied a reliability analysis (Skvoretz et al., 1992). This analysis consists of verifying the reliability and validity of the test under Cronbach alpha parameters, which is a reliability measure, to analyze instrument consistency (Baah et al., 2021).
Design reliability and validity test
We apply some reliability and validity tests to the data in this context. First, in our configuration matrix, the variables change. As we saw before, we had the constructs of loyalty, brand image, brand awareness, and archetype. These constructs vary in the exploratory factor analysis. In our study, the software thought out four factors. In the first one, the IBM software group 14 observable variables related to brand image, awareness, quality, and archetype. In addition, we found that all the factors accomplished with the minimum significance value, the second-factor group nine observable variables related to brand image and archetype. The third factor has six visible variables: loyalty, brand image, and archetype. Finally, the fourth factor has five observable variables linked to the archetype observed in Appendix 3, configuration matrix from IBM SPSS® software.
Consequently, we performed the reliability and validity test through the KMO and Bartlett's test (Escobar-Sierra et al., 2021; Howard, 2016). The KMO relates the correlation coefficients (Baah et al.,
2021). The KMO scale means that if the number is near, one implies a high relation (Howard, 2016; W. Li et al., 2019). In our case, the KMO is 0.930. Hence, a number greater than nine represents a high correlation (Khalili-Damghani et al., 2015). Equally, we apply the Bartlett test, which contrasts the variance. In our data, zero represents a high intercorrelation degree (Hair et al., 2019).
In addition to the KMO and Bartlett test, we perform another reliability test called Cronbach Alpha. We use Cronbach's Alpha to measure the reliability of the data (Yang et al., 2019). We have high reliability because we got a scale of 0.93 (Bartlett, 1959). This number means that our instrument is significant, reliable, and valid (Zaim et al., 2010).
Interpret the scores
We verify the constructs' validity and reliability proposed for the instrument in the fashion context. We recognize that fashion consumers comprehend jeans brands' value through brand equity because the concept exalts symbolic attributes for clients to develop attachments to brands (Leuthesser, 1997). On the other hand, we consider that consumers are aware of the fashion attributes of brands; however, it is necessary to comprehend in depth the effect of the product on consumers due to our consumers' profile selection (Aaker, 1996b; Leuthesser, 1997).
Subsequently, we identify that consumers make symbolic associations with fashion brands through brand equity. Hence, it is crucial to verify the influence of jeans garment signs on brand equity (Aaker, 1996b; Kotler and Keller, 2012). Furthermore, we suggest a new factor grouping supporting the authors' review. Our first factor is performance, second is brand personality, third is satisfaction, and fourth is competitiveness. The new classification is offered in Appendix 4.
Once we consolidate the constructs and their factors, we perform a hermeneutic interpretation to obtain the new factors that IMB SPSS® software throws. In this sense, factor one is oriented to the brand performance in consumer perception. The second factor is brand personality, which refers to the feeling consumers develop for a brand or a product. The third factor is satisfaction, which is oriented to the relationship with the consumer. Furthermore, the last factor is competitiveness, which is the perception of consumers about how the brand relates to the context (Aaker, 1996a; Arai et al., 2013).
Discussion with other authors
Our discussion with other authors found that measuring brand equity involves different aspects. One of those aspects is the second-order constructs. We agree with Aaker's (1996b) proposal because he presents a panoramic view of the essential elements such as brand image, perceived quality, and brand awareness. Those concepts help the researchers and practitioners apply brand equity. Additionally, Aaker's proposal highlights ways to develop brand discourse and catch consumer attention. At this point, we know that measuring brand equity could be complex because we must measure a symbolic phenomenon. However, the process becomes easy if we follow the construct proposal by Aaker (1996b).
In contrast, we identify that some authors use brand equity only to measure clients' perceptions; this is an incorrect use of brand equity because it limits the fieldwork for brands. Brand equity implies multiple functions, such as creating brand discourse, evaluating the impact of quality on clients' purchases, and identifying a specific brand's consumer knowledge (Rahman et al., 2021a). Those elements help to improve brand performance. In addition, the proposal byVan Osselaer and Alba, 2000 needs to be revised because the brand equity measure focuses on product description and instinctive attributes, limiting the clients' relationship with brands. Another weak proposal is from Yoo and Donthu (2001), who said that consumer willingness and competitive advantage help measure brand equity. However, this proposal is just one aspect of brand equity that focuses on organizational performance and needs to cover the share market; brand behavior centers on organizational performance and needs to cover the share market, brand behavior, and context changes.
The literature review finds some essential common elements among the authors. Independent of the type of research, all the authors agree on brand value, price, and brand personality (Aaker, 1996a; 1996b; Ailawadi et al., 2003; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Moreover, the associations are in the symbolic relation between consumers and brands or products (Leuthesser, 1997; Leuthesser et al., 1995). In
addition, literature usually shows loyalty and brand awareness (Buil et al., 2013; Chandon, 2003). We can infer that studying brand equity involves understanding the brand dimensions of consumer, organization, and context (Arai et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2009).
Conclusions
Exploring brand equity measurement under fashion consumer perception in the jeans industry, we found that symbolic aspects that consumers perceive improve economic discipline as stimuli elements related to purchases; this enables client experiences and the construction of brand awareness. We recognize that exploring brand equity measures is viable and truthful, particularly in the factor extraction process and reliability test. In this sense, we find essential consumer variables such as popularity, rebuy, and social responsibility.
Brand equity affects differentiation because consumers understand the different elements of brands. However, symbolic aspects are included in the differentiation, making consumers choose a brand. This research contributes to the understanding of fashion consumer perception under symbolic stimuli. Understanding other brand equity dimensions in fashion allows academics to chase, review, implement, and evaluate the performance of actions promoting symbolic experiences between consumers and brands. This research presents other variables and a solid symbolic dimension as an alternative to comprehending brand equity.
Our managerial contribution focuses on taking advantage of the impact of symbolic aspects on consumers. Moreover, our proposed instrument might help managers to design and create marketing strategies for the fashion industry focused on brand performance, brand personality from differentiation and taste sense, satisfaction perception, and competitiveness with social awareness. Those variables promote symbolic bonds with brands from fashion consumer perception.
Symbolic focusing that mediates between brand equity, fashion, and consumer perception implies a grade of subjectivity that does not constitute a measurable variable. Additionally, the context and the consumer typology mainly conduct inferences; the challenge consists of taking features of brand equity that scholars and managers may generalize with universal characteristics of fashion consumers to materialize strategies centered in symbolic aspects. One direction important for future research should be to track material variables and attributes of symbolism to define a measurement model and apply confirmatory analysis followed by generic strategies that help to use the construct in diverse contexts.
Furthermore, our methodology allows us to follow a pragmatical process in the humanities field that results in a valid instrument. The qualitative approach gives us the conceptual basis for understanding and measuring the multiple dimensions of the brand equity construct. Consequently, the quantitative approach helps us measure brand equity through statistical analysis that results in the applicability of fashion marketing.
Additionally, once we created and tested our measure instrument, we found that brand equity is helpful to understanding market aspects of brands and consumer perception, particularly in the fashion industry, where we select the neotraditional, contemporary, and exhibitionist archetypes. In addition, we focus on those archetypes that purchase jeanswear, and they establish symbolic associations of brand and products through the comprehension of symbolic aspects such as status, differentiation, and market acceptance. This process allowed us to put academic knowledge into practice. In the future, we expect to contribute to performing a transdisci-plinary approach between fashion and marketing with our proposal. Later, we suggest developing a model of structural equations for brand equity. Future research must focus on and replicate our process in the specific field of the marketing mix. Those interested in fashion should develop our approach in the garment and sign context. Our recommendations are oriented toward establishing a conceptual relation between constructs.
References
Aaker, D. (1996a). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management
Review 38(3), 102-120. DOI: 10.2307/41165845 Aaker, D. (1996b). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34(3), 347-356. Ailawadi, K., Lehmann, D., Neslin, S. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing 67(4), 1-17. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.67.4.1.18688
Arai, A., Ko, Y., Kaplanidou, K. (2013). Athlete brand image: Scale development and model test.
European Sport Management Quarterly 13(4), 383-403. DOI: 10.1080/16184742.2013.811609 Arnett, D., Laverie, D., Meiers, A. (2003). Developing parsimonious retailer equity indexes using partial least squares analysis: A method and applications. Journal of Retailing 79(3), 161-170. DOI:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00036-8 Baah, C., Opoku-Agyeman, D., Acquah, I., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E. et al. (2021). Examining the correlations between stakeholder pressures, green production practices, firm reputation, environmental and financial performance: Evidence from manufacturing SMEs. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27, 100-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.015 Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., Phillips, L. (2013). Assessing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 421-458. DOI: 10.2307/2393203 Baker, R., Yu, U., Gam, H., Banning, J. (2019). Identifying tween fashion consumers' profile concerning fashion innovativeness, opinion leadership, internet use for apparel shopping, interest in online co-design involvement, and brand commitment. Fashion and Textiles 6, 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40691-018-0158-9 Baker, W., Sinkula, J. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation
on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(4), 411-427. Barari, M., Ross, M., Thaichon, S., Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of customer engagement
behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies May, 1-21. DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12609 Barthes, R. (1978). El Sistema de la moda. Gustavo Gili S.A.
Bartlett, F. (1958). Thinking: An Experimental and Social Study. London: Allen & Unwin Ltd. Baudrillard, J. (2009). La sociedad de consumo. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Bridson, K., Evans, J. (2004). The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation. International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 32(8), 403-411. Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and Communication. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Buil, I., Martínez, E., De Chernatony, L. (2013). The influence of brand equity on consumer responses.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 30(1), 62-74. DOI: 10.1108/07363761311290849 Caldwell, M., Henry, P., Alman, A. (2010). Constructing audio-visual representations of consumer
archetypes. Qualitative Market Research 13(1), 84-96. DOI: 10.1108/13522751011013990 Carbono López, L. (2021). The city of clothes at the dawn of modernity. A brief overview of the textile industry growth in Medellin during the second half of the 20th century. Revista Ciencias y Humanidades 12(12), 35-54. Castro, C., Luis, J., Salgueiro, R. (2006). Constructos latentes y agregados en la economía de la empresa. In XX Congreso Nacional y XVI Congreso Hispano Frances de Aedem. Palma de Mallorca: Asociación Española de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, pp. 979-993. https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/76357 Chandon, P. (2003). Note on measuring brand awareness, brand image, brand equity and brand value. INSEAD Working Paper Series 2003/19/MKT. https://courseware.cutm.ac.in/wp-content/ uploads/2020/06/2003-19.pdf Cho, E., Fiore, A., Russell, D. (2015). Validation of a fashion brand image scale capturing cognitive, sensory, and affective associations: Testing its role in an extended brand equity model. Psychology and Marketing 32, 28-48. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20762 Cho, E., Fiore, A., Yu, U. (2018). Impact of fashion innovativeness on consumer-based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 35(3), 340-350. DOI: 10.1108/JCM-01-2017-2066 Collett, M., Cluver, B., Chen, H. (2013). Consumer perceptions the limited lifespan of fast fashion apparel.
Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 17(2), 61-68. DOI: 10.1108/RJTA-17-02-2013-B009 Crocker, L., Algina, J. (2006). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Orlando: Cenagage Learning. Davis, D., Golicic, S., Marquardt, A. (2009). Measuring brand equity for logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management 20(2), 201-212. DOI: 10.1108/09574090910981297
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., Lim, W. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133, 285-296. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 Elliott, R. (1999). Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. In: Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R., Whittington, R. (eds.) Rethinking Marketing: Towards Critical Marketing Accountings. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 112-125. DOI: 10.4135/9781446280058 Elliott, R., Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity.
International Journal of Advertising 17(2), 131-144. DOI: 10.1080/02650487.1998.11104712 Escobar-Sierra, M., Lara-Valencia, L., ValenciaDeLara, P. (2021). 'Step-by-step' method to conduct applied research in organizational engineering and business management (Método 'paso a paso' para la investigación aplicada en el ámbito de la ingeniería organizacional y la gestión empresarial). Cultura y Educacion 33(1), 28-77. DOI: 10.1080/11356405.2020.1859735 Feldwick, P. (1996). What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure it? International Journal
of Market Research 38(2), 85-104. DOI: 10.1177/147078539603800201 Quintas-Froufe, N., Quintas-Froufe, E. (2010). La dimensión comunicativa de la moda: apuntes del
caso español. Zer - Revista de Estudios de Comunicación 15(28), 197-212. Ganassali, S., Matysiewicz, J. (2021). Echoing the golden legends: Storytelling archetypes and their impact on brand perceived value. Journal of Marketing Management 37(5-6), 437-463. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2020.1831577 Giraldo, D., and Aparicio, M. (2016). Analysis of the influence of consumer perception on the purchase of americanino and tennis brands on young people in the city of Cali. Thesis. https://repository. icesi.edu.co/biblioteca_digital/handle/10906/78405 Goldsmith, R., Flynn, L., Moore, M. (1994). The self-concept of fashion leaders. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal 14(4), 242-248. DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9601400403 Gómez, J. (2011). La fascinación por la moda como expresión de libertad. RES. Revista Española de Sociología, (16), 91-113.
Gómez, M., Pérez, W. (2018). International review of management and marketing effects of brand love and brand equity on repurchase intentions of young consumers. International Review of Management and Marketing 8(4), 7-13. Goux, J. (2011). El precio de las cosas frivolas. DeSignis 17, 15-23.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis. Cengage Learning. Horstmann, F. (2017). Measuring the shopper's attitude toward the point of sale display: Scale development and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 36, 112-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.01.011 Howard, M. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32(1), 51-62. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664 Hsiao, S., Wang, Y., Wang, T., Kao, T. (2020). How social media shapes the fashion industry: The spillover effects between private labels and national brands. Industrial Marketing Management 86, 40-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.022 Huang, H., Chang, Y., Yeh, C., Liao, C. (2014). Promote the price promotion and the effects of price promotions on customer evaluations in coffee chain stores. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26(7), 1065-1082. DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2013-0204 Hunt, S. (2010). Marketing Theory. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Jiménez Gómez, J. (2008). La moda y la clase social en la era del consumo. Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
Jung, C. (1970). Arquetipos e inconsciente colectivo. Paidós Ibérica.
Keller, K., Brexendorf, T. (2019). Measuring brand equity. In: Esch, F. (eds.) Handbuch Markenführung. Springer Reference Wirtschaft. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-13342-9_72
Keller, K., Prameswaran, A., Jacob, I. (2015). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and
Managing Brand Equity. Uttar Pradesh: Pearson. Kewenter, C., Galkin, V. (2021). Exploring fast fashion renting and its influence on brand equity - A comparative study between Sweden and Russia. Student publication for Master's degree. Lund University School of Economics and Management. Khalili-Damghani, K., Tavana, M., Najmodin, M. (2015). Reverse logistics and supply chains: A Structural equation modeling investigation. International Journal of Industrial Engineering : Theory Applications and Practice 22(3), 354-368. Kim, J., Lloyd, S., Adebeshin, K., Kang, J. (2019). Decoding fashion advertising symbolism in masstige and luxury brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 23(2), 277-295. DOI: 10.1108/ JFMM-04-2018-0047
Koivisto, E., Mattila, P. (2020). Extending the luxury experience to social media - User-generated content co-creation in a branded event. Journal of Business Research 117, 570-578. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.030 Kotler, P., Keller, K. (2012). Dirección de Marketing. Pearson Educación.
Kuusela, M. (2021). Luxury Brand Equity Building in the Digital Age. Bachelor's thesis. https://
aaltodoc.aalto.fi/items/e1f39c62-51a4-4e45-907c-d521b70fc3c8 Law, D., Wong, C., Yip, J. (2012). How does visual merchandising affect consumer affective response?: An intimate
apparel experience. European Journal of Marketing 46(1), 112-133. DOI: 10.1108/03090561211189266 Lee, S., Jung, S. (2020). Fashion consumers' channel-hopping profiles by psychographics and demographics.
International Journal of Market Research 62(5), 615-632. DOI: 10.1177/1470785318821854 Leuthesser, L. (1997). Supplier relational behavior: An empirical assessment. Industrial Marketing
Management 26(3), 245-254. DOI: 10.1016/S0019-8501(96)00092-2 Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. (1997). Corporate identity: The role of mission statements. Business Horizons
40(3), 59-66. DOI: 10.1016/S0007-6813(97)90053-7 Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C., Harich, K. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure. European Journal
of Marketing 29(4), 57-66. DOI: 10.1108/03090569510086657 Li, L., Borland, R., Fong, G., Thrasher, J., Hammond, D., Cummings, K. (2013). Impact of point-of-sale tobacco display bans: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Health Education Research 28(5), 898-910. DOI: 10.1093/her/cyt058 Li, W., Ho, M., Yang, C. (2019). A design thinking-based study of the prospect of the sustainable development of traditional handicrafts. Sustainability 11(18), 4823. DOI: 10.3390/su11184823
Llovet Rodríguez, C. (2016). Razones para la emoción en el consumo de moda. Vivat Academia Revista de Comunicación XIX(137), 57-77. DOI: 10.15178/va.2016.137.57-77
Maloney, A. (1999). Preference ratings of images representing archetypal themes: An empirical study of the concept of archetypes. Journal of Analytical Psychology 44(1), 101-116. DOI: 10.1111/1465-5922.00070 Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Faullant, R. (2007). Dimensions of price satisfaction: A replication and extension.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 25(6), 394-405. DOI: 10.1108/02652320710820345 Moorman, C., Rust, R. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing 63(4_suppl1), 180-197.
DOI: 10.1177/00222429990634s117 Jayasuriya, N. (2022). The impact of Facebook6 marketing on customer-based brand equity and purchase intention on fashionwear retail industry in Sri Lanka. Asian Journal of Marketing Management AJMM 1(1), 89-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31357/ajmm.v1i02.5960 Obiegbu, C., Larsen, G., Ellis, N. (2020). Experiential brand loyalty: Towards an extended conceptualisation of consumer allegiance to brands. Marketing Theory 20(3), 251-271. DOI: 10.1177/1470593119885167
6 Продукт компании Meta, экстремистской организации, деятельность которой запрещена на территории Российской Федерации.
Paul, J., Lim, W., O'Cass, A., Hao, A., Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies 45(1), 1-16. DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12695 Peirce, C. (1974). La Ciencia de la Semiótica. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión.
Perez, C., Bairon, S. (2013). The meta-discourse of contemporary brands and the indexing of consumption: A way to build bonds of meaning. Social Semiotics 23(4), 570-586. DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2013.799011 Pool, J., Asian, S., Abareshi, A., Mahyari, H. (2018). An examination of the interplay between country-of-origin, brand equity, brand preference and purchase intention toward global fashion brands. International Journal of Business Forecasting andMarketing Intelligence 4(1), 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/jbfmi.2018.10009308 Quan, N., Chi, N., Nhung, D., Ngan, N., Phong, L. (2020). The influence of website brand equity and e-brand experience on e-loyalty: The mediating role of e-satisfaction. Management Science Letters 10(1), 63-76. DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.015 Rahman, M., Abdel Fattah, F., Hussain, B., Hossain, M. (2021a). An integrative model of consumer-based heritage destination brand equity. Tourism Review 76(2), 358-373. DOI: 10.1108/TR-12-2019-0505 Rahman, R., Langner, T., Temme, D. (2021b). Brand love: Conceptual and empirical investigation of a holistic causal model. Journal of Brand Management, 28, 609-642. DOI: 10.1057/s41262-021-00237-7 Raut, U., Pawar, P., Brito, P., Sisodia, G. (2019). Mediating model of brand equity and its application.
Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC 23(2), 295-318. DOI: 10.1108/SJME-04-2019-0021 Riello, G. (2001). Breve Historia de la Moda. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili. Rindell, A., Santos, F. (2021). What makes a corporate heritage brand authentic for consumers? A semiotic approach. Journal of Brand Management 28, 545-558. DOI: 10.1057/s41262-021-00243-9 Sari, N., Chan, T., Abd-Ghani, N. (2022). The influence of brand equity and price consciousness on consumers' brand purchase intention of fashion retail apparel. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 12(1), 2296-2314. Seliani, A., Pratomo, L. (2019). Antecedents of Brand Equity. Manajemen Bisnis 9(2), 145-157. Sharma, R. (2020). Building consumer-based brand equity for fast fashion apparel brands in the Indian consumer market. Management and Labour Studies 45(3), 337-365. DOI: 10.1177/0258042X20922060
Shen, B., Wang, Y., Lo, C., Shum, M. (2012). The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement 16(2), 234-245. DOI: 10.1108/13612021211222842
Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press.
Skvoretz, J., Smith, S., Baldwin, C. (1992). Parallel-processing applications for data analysis in the social
sciences. Concurrency: Practice and Experience 4(3), 207-221. DOI: 10.1002/cpe.4330040302 Tasci, A. (2021). A critical review and reconstruction of perceptual brand equity. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 33(1), 166-198. DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0186 Tranaviciüté, B. (2020). Dreaming of the West: The power of the brand in Soviet Lithuania, 1960s-1980s.
Business History 62(1), 179-195. DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1379505 Tuominen, P. (1999). Managing brand equity. LTA: Liiketaloudellinen Aikakauskirja 257(9), 65-100. Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H., Merunka, D. (2011). The impact of brand personality and sales promotions
on brand equity. Journal of Business Research 64(1), 24-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.015 Van Osselaer, S., Alba, J. (2000). Consumer learning and brand equity. Journal of Consumer Research
27(1), 1-16. DOI: 10.1086/314305 Veblen, T. (2000). Teoría de la Clase Ociosa. Ediciones Elaleph.
Venkatraman, M., Price, L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness. Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business Research 20(4), 293-315. DOI: 10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Oppen, C. van. (2009). Assessing using PLS path modeling hierarchical
and empirical construct models: Guidelines. MIS Quarterly 33(1), 177-195. DOI: 10.2307/20650284 Whan Park, C., Maclnnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., Lacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing 74(6), 1-17. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1 Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management Decision 38(9),
662-669. DOI: 10.1108/00251740010379100 Wu, C., Guaita Martínez, J., Martín Martín, J. (2020). An analysis of social media marketing strategy and performance in the context of fashion brands: The case of Taiwan. Psychology and Marketing 37(9), 1185-1193. DOI: 10.1002/mar.21350 Xara-Brasil, D., Miadaira Hamza, K., Marquina, P. (2018). The meaning of a brand? An archetypal
approach. Revista de Gestao 25(2), 142-159. DOI: 10.1108/REGE-02-2018-0029 Yang, C., Cheng, J., Wang, X. (2019). Hybrid quality function deployment method for innovative new product design based on the theory of inventive problem solving and Kansei evaluation. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 11(5), 1-17. DOI: 10.1177/1687814019848939
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52(1), 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3 Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2), 195-211. DOI: 10.1177/0092070300282002 Zaim, S., Turkyilmaz, A., Tarim, M., Ucar, B., Akkas, O. (2010). Measuring customer satisfaction in Turk Telekom Company using structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Global Strategic Management 7, 89-99.
Zarfino, K. (2010). Moda y conciencia = Fashion and awareness. Datatèxtil (23), 38-45.
Appendix 1
Test specifications constructs and observable variables
First-order construct Second-order constructs Third-order constructs Observable variables
Brand equity Loyalty Loyalty Satisfaction
Brand equity Favoritism
Recommend to other
Buyback
Brand image Associations Leadership
Symbols Popular
Life story Innovative
Value for money
Personality
Interesting
Clear picture
Confidence
Admiration
Different
Attractive
Style
Trend
History
Drama
Watch out
Performance
High quality
Brand awareness Awareness Recognition
Remembrance
The first
Known
Strong
Leader
Archetype Role model Dominant
Fitness Knowledge
Physical attractiveness Skills
Rivalry Sportsmanship Competition style Experience Distinctive
Exciting
Charismatic
Respect
Rivalry
Attractive
Beautiful
Good condition
Responsible
Social
Model to follow
Leader
Source: authors
Appendix 2 Pool of items
Construct Questionnaire
Brand equity By buying your favorite brand, you feel satisfied
After buying your favorite brand, you would recommend it
After buying your favorite brand, you would repurchase it
Your favorite brand is a leader in its category
Your favorite brand is famous
Your favorite brand is innovative
Your favorite brand is good value for money
Your favorite brand has a personality
Your favorite brand is attractive
The image of your favorite brand is clear
Your favorite brand builds your confidence
You feel admiration for your favorite brand
Your favorite brand is different
Your favorites brand is attractive
Your favorite brand has style
Your favorite brand is trending
Your favorite brand has a history
Your favorite brand performs well
Your favorite brand offers high quality
Your favorite brand is recognized
You remember the elements of your favorite brand, such as color, logo, and slogan
Your favorite brand is the first you think of when it comes to clothing
Your favorite brand is known
Your favorite brand is vital
Your favorite brand is the dominant one
Your favorite brand is an expert at what it does
Your favorite brand can compete with others in its class
Your favorite brand is different
Your favorite brand is exciting
Your favorite brand is charismatic
Your favorite brand is respectful
Your favorite brand has an evident rivalry with other brands in the same category
Your favorite brand is attractive
Your favorite brand is excellent
When you buy products from your favorite brand, they are in good condition
Your favorite brand is responsible
Your favorite brand is socially responsible
Your favorite brand is a role model
Source: authors
Appendix 3
Configuration matrix
Question Factor
1 2 3 4
When you buy your favorite brand of jeans, you feel satisfied ,809
After buying your favorite brand of jeans, you would recommend them ,787
After buying your favorite brand of jeans, you will repurchase it ,907
Your favorite brand of jeans is a leader in its category ,679
Your favorite brand of jeans is famous ,912
Your favorite brand of jeans is innovative ,736
Your favorite brand of jeans is good value for the money ,530
Your favorite jeans brand has personality ,748
Your favorite brand of jeans is attractive ,810
The image of your favorite brand of jeans is clear
Your favorite jeans brand builds confidence ,539
You feel admiration for your favorite brand of jeans ,457
Your favorite brand of jeans is different ,879
Your favorite brand of jeans is attractive ,819
Your favorite brand of jeans has style ,758
Your favorite brand of jeans is trending ,427 ,616
Your favorite jeans brand has a history ,624
You remember the elements of your favorite jeans brand, such as color, logo, and slogan
Your favorite brand is the first you think of when it comes to clothing
Your favorite brand of jeans is known ,954
Your favorite brand of jeans is strong ,806
Your favorite brand of jeans is a top ,661
Your favorite brand of jeans is the best
Your favorite brand of jeans is consistent ,400
Your favorite brand of jeans is dominant ,698
Your favorite jeans brand is an expert at what it does ,495
Your favorite brand of jeans can compete with others of its kind ,490
Your favorite brand of jeans is different ,631
Your favorite jeans brand is exciting ,694
Your favorite brand of jeans is respectful ,753
Your favorite jeans brand has an evident rivalry with other brands in the same category ,419
Your favorite brand of jeans is friendly ,400
When buying products from your favorite jeans brand, these are in good condition ,631
Your favorite brand of jeans is responsible ,883
Your favorite brand of jeans is socially responsible ,831
Your favorite brand of jeans is a role model ,719
Your favorite brand of jeans is charismatic ,453 ,432
Source: authors
Appendix 4
A new factor classification based on the literature review
Factor 1: Performance
Question Score Authors
Your favorite brand of jeans is a leader in its category 0,679 Aaker, 1996a; Arai et al., 2013
Your favorite brand of jeans is popular 0,912
Your favorite brand of jeans is trending 0,427
Your favorite jeans brand has a history 0,623
Your favorite brand of jeans is known 0,954
Your favorite brand of jeans is strong 0,806
Your favorite brand of jeans is top 0,661
Your favorite brand of jeans is consistent 0,400
Your favorite brand of jeans is dominant 0,698
Your favorite jeans brand is an expert at what it does 0,494
Your favorite brand of jeans can compete with others of its kind 0,490
Factor 2: Brand personality
Question Score Authors
Your favorite brand of jeans is innovative 0,736 Arai et al., 2013
Your favorite jeans brand has personality 0,748
Your favorite brand of jeans is interesting 0,809
You feel admiration for your favorite brand of jeans 0,457
Your favorite brand of jeans is different 0,879
Your favorite brand of jeans is attractive 0,819
Your favorite brand of jeans has style 0,758
Your favorite brand of jeans is different 0,631
Factor 3: Satisfaction
Question Score Authors
When you buy your favorite brand of jeans, you feel satisfied 0,809 Aaker, 1996b
After buying your favorite brand of jeans, you would recommend them 0,787
After buying your favorite brand of jeans, you will buy it again 0,907
Your favorite brand of jeans is good value for money 0,529
Your favorite jeans brand builds confidence 0,539
When buying products from your favorite brand of jeans, these are in good condition 0,630
Factor 4: Competitiveness
Question Score Authors
Your favorite brand of jeans is respectful 0,753 Arai et al., 2013
Your favorite brand of jeans is nice 0,400
Your favorite brand of jeans is responsible 0,883
Your favorite brand of jeans is socially responsible 0,831
Your favorite brand of jeans is a role model 0,719
Source: authors
