遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
銷售促銷和品牌資產
SALES PROMOTION AND BRAND EQUITY
周美利
李分明
蔣丞哲
遠東科技大學應用外語系
遠東科技大學應用外語系
遠東科技大學企業管理系
摘
要
很多研究顯示，銷售促銷此角色對於品牌資產有其爭議性的影響力。因此，
本文回顧有關兩者間的關係之文獻，且對其理論性文獻及觀察性文獻亦作批
評性分析，以作為未來研究方向之基礎。
關鍵詞：銷售促銷，品牌資產，品牌聯想，認知品質，品牌形像，品牌忠誠
度
Mei-Li Chou, Dept. of Applied Foreign Language, Far East University
Fen-Ming Lee, Dept. of Applied Foreign Language, Far East University
Cheng-Che Chiang, Dept. of Business Administration, Far East University
ABSTRACT
Curious about brand perceptions of consumers who are stimulated by various sales
promotional incentives, this paper aims at critically analyzing theoretical and
empirical literature about the impacts of sales promotion on brand equity, and
about areas of future scholarly inquiry.
Many studies found that sales promotion
had a positive impact on short-term increase in sale, but it still played a
controversial role to build, maintain, or raise brand equity that was cumulated in
consumer’s minds for a long run. Hence, it is interesting to critically review
literature investigating the relationship between brand equity and sales promotion
to ground the basis of future exploration direction about the issue.
Keyword：sales promotion, brand equity, brand association, perceived quality,
brand image, brand loyalty
I-165
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
INTRODUCTION TO THE
LITERATURE
The Relationship between Sales
Promotion and Brand Equity: An
Overview and Purpose
increase brand equity. One of the strategies used by
companies is devote to developing sales promotion
for their brand, and lead consumers through the
process of generating brand awarenesses, brand
associations, positive attitudes and positive behaviors.
In America, business consulting corporate or
Expecting
to
gain
positive
consumer
brand
business magazines annually announce valuable
associations and positive consumer attitudes about the
brands. According to a Business Week survey about
brand, these sales promotions, the communication
brand value in 2004, Coca Cola got the first prize in
tools between the corporation and consumers, aim at
the world. The brands close to it were Microsoft,
expressing brand positions and brand attributes, as
IBM, GE, and Intel. In 2000, the news that AOL
well as leveraging brand awareness. However, sales
announced to merge with Time Warner shocked
promotions result in positive, negative, or no
Internet and media industries; in 2001, technique
influence on a brand. Yoo (2000) found that price
giant HP Corporation also announced a merge with
promotion had a negative impact on negatively
famous computer great Campbell corp.
The
perceived quality and brand association; Lee’s (2002)
implication of these corporate mergers identified the
study found that consumers’ long-term brand value
importance of brand value. Brand equity, additional
may be created by non-price-related sales promotion.
brand value, covers the scopes of corporate future
Critical analysis of the literature review
cash flow, the position of the corporation in consumer
originated with curiosity about the effects of sales
minds, as well as consumer perceptions, attitudes and
promotion on brand equity.
behaviors about a corporation.
Hence, when a
growing consumer concern; therefore a critical
company’s value is measured, concept and position of
analysis of the literature review could be helpful to
its brand equity are importantly identified.
business
Researchers
and
consulting
companies
developed equations to measure brand value.
The
decision-makers.
Sales promotion is a
The
review
may
enlighten businesses with the importance of sales
promotion in acquiring long-term brand equity in
degree of brand value relies on brand awareness,
consumer minds.
brand attraction, consumer brand loyalty, brand
significance between sales promotion and brand
perceived quality, brand communication information,
equity, then companies might focus efforts on the
as well as protective factors such as trademarks or
internal organization dynamics such as on employees
patents.
rather than on customer or the general public, or
Generally speaking, the higher the brand
awareness and brand loyalty enable the generating of
might
a better brand image, which also evokes a better brand
communication tactics to consumers.
association.
analysis
When the brand that has possessed
center
of
on
If the review identifies little
other
literature
Marketing
review
mix
as
This critical
concludes
with
brand awareness, brand loyalty and brand association,
summaries, recommendations for theoretical and
owns the protection, e.g., trademarks or patents, it
empirical, as well as addressed
will result in high consumer brand value (Aaker,
for future scholarly inquiry into the relationship
1996).
between brand equity and sales promotion.
Recognizing the value of brand equity,
companies must be concerned about how to build and
I-166
recommendations
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
REVIEW OF THE LITERAURE
ABOUT SALES PROMOTION
AND BRAND EQUITY
Sales Promotion
Definition of Sales Promotion
中華民國九十五年九月出版
noted that sales promotions that mostly last for a short
term is composed of a diverse collection of incentive
tools whose aim was to stimulate a greater or quicker
purchase, as well as a trial.
Categories of Sales Promotion
Paley (1989) regarded sales promotions as
According to Engle & Blackwell (2001), three
activities of corporate sales Promotion Mix which are
main sales promotion tools motivating purchases on
not able to be generalized to the activities such as
new products include sampling and trial offers,
advertising, member sales, or packaging.
The
coupons, as well as rebates while three primary sales
purpose of sale promotion is to motivate salespeople,
promotion tools driving consumption purchases on
retailers, and end consumers to match corporate's
existing products include price-offs, premiums, and
plans through temporary incentives.
contests.
O’Guinn (2000) listed several tools for
Blattberg and Neslin (1990) defined sale
consumer-market sales promotion, including price-off
promotions as a marketing events relevant to the
deals, contests and sweepstakes, brand(product)
concentration of sales activities, which aim at
placements,
resulting in direct strike on consumer behaviors that
sponsorships, rebates, frequency, and premiums as
are related to the corporate. Kotler (1994) stated that
well.
sales promotions were composed of various incentive
promotion tools which included samples, coupons,
tools that were utilized to motivate consumers or
rebates, price packs, premiums, frequency programs,
retailers to make large amounts of purchase on the
prizes,
certain product in advance and with rapidity.
warranties,
Shimp (1997) suggested that sales promotion
sampling
Kotler
(2003)
patronage
tie-in
and
trial
offers,
displayed
awards,
free
promotion,
event
thirteen
trials,
sale
product
cross-promotion,
point-of-purchase displays and demonstrations.
In
was an incentive which induced distributive traders
addition to these sales promotion tools, several tools,
and consumers to purchase products, or encouraged
e.g., bonus pack (Ong, 1999), specialty advertising
salespersons to actively increase sales promotion.
(Lee, 2002), and continuity programs (Ong, 1999),
O’Giunn et al., (2000) defined sales promotion as the
are utilized to encourage large purchases or repeat
utilization of incentive techniques creating a concept
purchases.
of greater brand values among consumers and
distributors.
The main purpose is to generate
Many researchers grouped the characteristics of
sales
promotion
tools
into
several categories.
short-term increase in sales by the means of
Based on timing offered by sales promotion
encouragement of larger purchases or motivation of
incentives and incentive types, Quelch (1989)
temporary use.
grouped sales promotion tools into two categories:
Eagel and Blackwell (2001) noted that sales
instant and postponed sales promotions. Both sales
promotion, a set of repaid marketing activities,
promotions primarily focus on lowering prices and
involves stimulating consumers and distributive
adding values.
members.
It centers on objects (groups) via
Based on analyzing the characteristics of sales
incentives and motivations which are relevant to the
promotion incentives, Dommermuth (1989) suggested
economy (Eagel & Blackwell, 2001). Kotler (2003)
two kinds of sales promotion: one was sales
I-167
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
promotion from economic incentive, e.g., discounts,
(p.
320)
and
those
that
were
not.
coupons, and rebates; another was sales promotion
Consumer-franchise building, aims at reinforcing
from psychological incentives, e.g., premium, and
brand understanding for consumers, e.g., coupon
sweepstakes.
including a selling message (Kotler, 2003).
Brand Equity
Definition of Brand Equity
Shimp’s (1990) categories of sales promotion,
similar to Quelch’s (1989), were in the basis of timing
given by sale incentives, including instant sales
Brand equity is the combination of two nouns,
promotion and postponed sales promotion. Instant
brand and equity.
sales promotion tools include discounts, premiums,
Marketing Association, a brand is a noun, logo, mark,
and bonus packs while postponed sales promotion
design or a combination of the above items, whose
tools include coupons in packs, sweepstakes, and
purpose is to identify products or services from those
rebates (Shimp, 1990).
of other different firms, and accordingly differentiate
According to The America
Campbell and Diamond (1990), on the basis of
products and services from those of other varied firms.
the concept that sales promotion incentives affected
Usually, people are easily confused about the
reference prices, grouped two varieties of sales
concepts of “product” and “brand”.
promotion which were monetary sales promotion and
substantial identity or a substantial service offered to
nonmonetary
to
be utilized; a brand is an abstract, intangible
Campbell and Diamond (1990), the incentive for
substance without functional characteristics; a brand
monetary sales promotion, e.g., discounts or rebates,
is one kind of psychological interpretation on a
enables influencing reference price.
substantial object; a brand, in a form of abstract
sales
promotion.
According
The incentive
for nonmonetary sales promotion, e.g., premium, or
identity, exists with a product (Kim, 1990).
trial offers, is regarded as an extra benefit and is not
able to influence reference price.
A product is a
The term “equity” originates from the items of
asset-liability list.
When brand and equity are
Investigating the influence of sales promotion
combined into one term, the views on brand equity
on long-term consumption brand choices, Mela,
from finance and marketing are relatively different.
Gupta, and Lehmann (1997) categorized promotion
Various
tools as two kinds of sales promotion, which were
dimensions of brand equity are distinguished into
price-oriented sales promotion and non-price-oriented
three directions which are in terms of financial view,
sales promotion.
marketing view, and synthesized view of finance and
While
studying
the
relationship
between
views
of
researchers,
measuring
the
marketing.
promotion effect and promotion value, Chandon,
Dimensions of Brand Equity
Wansink, and Laurent (2000), corresponding to
Measuring brand equity from approach of
Campbell and Diamond (1990), categorized sales
consumer perception, Martin & Brown (1990)
promotion tools into two groups which were
suggested
monetary sales promotion and nonmonetary sales
dimensions which were perceived quality, perceived
promotion.
value, brand image, trustworthiness, and commitment.
Kotler (2003) distinguished between sale
promotions that were “consumer-franchise building”
that
brand
equity
comprised
five
The central conclusions of their research were:
perceived
I-168
quality
is
linked
with
consumer
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
consciousness about the function of a brand product;
Blackston (1995) further suggested that the
perceived value is related to consumer perception
origins of brand equity were brand association, brand
about his/her obtained value and relative cost; brand
personality, and brand significance which were an
image is a consumer brand concept which is built on
extended definition of brand awareness.
consumer brand belief; trustworthiness refers to the
Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu (1995),
same identification about practical brand performance
referring to Aaker’s (1991) suggestion, categorized
and expected brand performance; and commitment is
brand equity as being composed of two parts which
regarded as consumer’s strong attachment to a
were associated with consumer perception and
specific brand.
consumer behavior.
Brand perception includes
three
brand awareness, brand association, and perceived
components which built a strong brand were
quality; consumer behavior includes brand loyalty and
contributed to positive brand value.
purchase intention.
Farquhar
(1990)
proposed
that
These three
In their study, they measured
components were perceived quality, accessible brand
perception dimension and found that origins of
attitude, and consistent brand image.
perception dimension of brand equity influenced
Aaker (1991; 1996) noted that the elements
which
composed
brand
equity
were
brand
awareness, perceived quality, brand association, brand
consumer
The five components are able to create values
for the brand.
reflects
Most significantly, brand loyalty
consumer
purchase
behavior,
and
the
and
purchase
intention.
Consequently, factors of perception dimension can
affect consumer behavior.
Examining the five perception dimensions of
loyalty and other proprietary brand assets (see Figure
2).
preference
brand equity by Martin and Brown in 1990, Lasser,
Mittal, & Sharma (1995) made several changes and
proposed
five
dimensions
of
brand
equity:
components associated with perception dimension,
performance, social image, value, trustworthiness,
e.g., brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand
and identification.
association, can strengthen consumer brand loyalty
situation in which consumers regard a brand flawless
via leverage of consumer satisfaction.
and consistently utilized; social image is perception
Blackston (1992) emphasized the part of
stemming
from
Performance refers to the
brand
respect
of
consumer
consumer attitude that was one of the origins of brand
communities; value is perception of brand effect
equity. He suggested that a brand was comprised of
compared to consumer given cost; trustworthiness is
two categories which were an objective brand and a
created when a consumer is confident with a company
subjective brand. An objective brand is a collection
and its communicative information, and its activities
of brand association, brand image, and brand
which take consumer benefit into consideration; and
personality; a subjective brand refers to brand attitude.
identification/attachment refers to relative feeling
Objective brand relates to consumer brand perception;
strength to positive brand consciousness.
subjective brand is associated with what the brand is
The core dimensions of brand equity are
in consumer minds, and what kind of consumer uses
perceived quality and brand association (Aaker, 1991).
the brand.
A subjective brand is reflected by
The four dimensions (brand awareness, brand
consumer brand attitude, which depicts personal
association, perceived quality, and other brand
perception and consciousness about a brand.
proprietary assets) are helpful to establish the
I-169
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
dimension of brand loyalty (Aaker, 1991).
Aaker
relative price, and brand loyalty.
While all of the
(1996) further grouped brand equity into five
parts are the components contributed to a competitive
categories to measure brand equity.
The five
brand, each part has the diluted effect on the others.
categories of brand equity respectively are loyalty,
For example, a price increase may generate a decrease
perceived
of market share.
quality/leadership,
Aaker’s
associations/differentiation, brand awareness, and
(1991;
1996)
preposition
about
market behavior. Aaker (1996) further developed a set
dimensions of brand equity contains both the
of measures to measure these five sub dimensions of
perception dimensions and behavior dimensions
brand equity.
suggested
by
above
various
researchers.
Feldwick (1996) stated that the establishment of
Synthesized from above various propositions about
brand equity was generated by the formation of brand
dimensions of brand equity, five dimensions (brand
value, brand strength, and brand description.
Brand
awareness, perceived quality, brand association, brand
value refers to the concept regarding overall value of
loyalty, and other brand proprietary assets) suggested
a brand as an independent asset; brand strength is the
by Aaker (1991; 1996) and one additional dimension
degree of consumer’s feeling on a brand; brand
(brand image) are specifically reviewed as follows.
description is consumer’s related association and a
Brand Awareness
consumer’s belief of description which are attached to
a brand.
Brand awareness is the ability of a potential
consumer to recognize or recall a brand attached to
Keller (1993; 1998) suggested that brand equity
certain product category (Aaker, 1991; Aaker, 1996).
was a differential effect of brand knowledge which
Brand awareness comprises four levels which, from
came from consumer reaction to market brand.
the basic level to the highest level, respectively are:
Hence, brand knowledge is the origin of brand equity
brand unrecognition, brand recognition, brand recall,
whose dimensions are composed of brand awareness
and the ideal brand in mind (Aaker, 1991).
and brand image.
awareness
consumer
brand
Brand awareness is a collection of
recall
and
consumer
brand
combination
was
of
defined
by
Keller
brand
recall
and
Brand
(1998)
as
recognition
recognition. Brand recall refers to consumer ability
performance for consumers.
generating recall when facing category types of
(1998), as well as Percy Rossiter (1992), noted that
products. Brand recognition is the consumer ability
brand awareness is the concept of brand recognition
which directly identifies heard or seen products.
and brand recall.
In
Additionally, Keller
Brand recall is the ability to pick
terms of brand image, it is one kind of brand
out the brand from consumer memory when provided
perception reflected by brand association in consumer
with the product category (Keller, 1998); brand
memory.
Three types of brand association are
recognition is built when a consumer is able to
attributes
association,
and
confirm his/her prior exposure to the brand in the
attitudes association. Additionally, three dimensions
situation where the brand as a cure is given (Aaker,
of brand association, which are favorability, strength,
1991; Aaker; 1998). Aaker (1996) and Keller(1998)
and uniqueness, can be utilized as brand knowledge.
both indicated that brand awareness was devoted to
benefits
association,
Moran (2002) noted that recognizing brand
invoking brand association, transferring consumer
equity needs to consider three parts: market share,
familiarity to consumer favorability, providing the
I-170
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
signal of substance and commitment, as well as
encoded and stored information bring about higher
influencing
set.
recall probabilities existed in consumer minds.
Evaluation of brand awareness can demonstrate brand
Uniqueness of brand associations makes the
extension situation in consumer groups (Aaker, 1996;
brand in the competitive advantage because the
Aaker, 1996).
characteristics may not be shared with the other brand
the
consumer’s
consideration
To extend the market, increasing
brand awareness is an essential schema because it
and may give identifiability to consumers.
In terms of associations, many different forms
influences consumer recognition and consumer
attitude (Aaker, 1996).
existed on the basis of their level of abstraction which
Brand Association
stems from how much information is summarized or
Association is a common term that is identified
included in the association.
Three main types of
as a link between any two nodes (Krishnan, 1996).
brand associations are suggested by Keller (1998):
Brand association is anything--e.g., informative
attributes (including product-related attributes and
communication experience, exposure of information,
non-product-related attributes), benefits (including
or network association with others--connected in the
functional
consumer's memory to a brand (Aaker, 1996).
symbolic benefits), as well as attitudes. Functional
Brand association is the core asset to establish brand
benefits,
equity (Chen, 2001).
Corresponding to Aaker
attributes, refer to more substantial and intrinsic
(1996), Keller’s (1998) associative network memory
advantages of service or product consumption.
model also suggested that brand association was the
These benefits involve desires to satisfy problem
linkage of information nodes and brand nodes. Four
avoidance or removal, and usually are linked with
dimensions of brand association reflecting brand
basic motivation like physiological and safety needs
image suggested by Keller (1998) are respectively:
as well (Percy & Rossiter, 1992; Keller, 1998).
types of brand associations, favorability of brand
Symbolic benefits, which usually correspond to
associations, strength of brand associations, and
non-product-related attributes, are more extrinsic
uniqueness of brand associations.
advantage of service or product consumption.
The four
benefits,
which
experiential
correspond
to
benefits,
and
product-related
These
dimensions of brand association are described as
benefits are associated with personal expression,
follows.
outer-directed self-esteem, and social approval.
(1) Types of brand associations are basic contents of
When consumers center on their self-concepts, they
brand images, including attributes, benefits, and
may value symbolic benefits such as fashionability,
attitudes.
exclusivity, or prestige of a brand.
(2) The level of favorability of brand associations
benefits are especially relevant for social badge
can reflect the success of a marketing mix. When
products
the marketing mix satisfies consumer needs, the
information about themselves to others. Experiential
positive brand attitudes leverage the whole brand
benefits,
values and create brand favorability.
product-related attributes and non-product-related
(3) Strength of brand associations is related to how
attributes as well, refer to the consumer feelings from
information is encoded and stored in consumers’
the product or service consumption.
brains. The products with a higher strength of
I-171
that
which
consumers
usually
think
Symbolic
convey
correspond
to
some
both
Experiential
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
benefits meet experiential needs such as variety,
order to achieve optimal buying decisions and actions,
cognitive stimulation, and sensory pleasure.
consumers will exhaust their time and ability
Brand Image
collecting information, making comparisons among
Brand image is the group of beliefs held about a
particular brand (Kotler, 2003). Variously defined,
competing products, as well as evaluating product
characteristic and attributes.
brand image is a set of associations that are usually
Another school argues against the rational view
organized in some meaningful way (Aaker, 1996).
because of the theory’s insufficient capture of
Aaker (1996) divided brand associations into eleven
consumers’ complex buying motivation.
types, including: product attribute characteristics,
contend that the rational view does not consider
consumer benefit, product level, intangible attribute,
emotional consumption reasons.
relative price, usage situation, user, member, living
consumption which depends on an individual’s
type/personality, competitor, and country.
Owing
emotional motives, subjective criteria, or intangible
to different strengths and traits, different associations
product benefits as hedonic (symbolic) consumption,
result in varied influential effects on brand images.
in contrast to the rational (utilitarian) view (Schiffman
Brand images are perceptions about a brand that
& Kanuk, 1994).
They
They propose
The two different views of
are reflected by the brand associations existed in
motivation are that consumption behaviors are driven
consumer memory (Keller, 1998). Based on Keller
by function (utilitarian) or by symbolic (hedonic)
(1998), brand associations are the collection of the
brand image.
informational nodes connected with the brand node in
In spite of these two viewpoints of brand image,
consumer memory, and consist of meaning of a brand
some evidence supports the idea that symbolism and
for consumers.
functionality
types,
and
characteristics
Brand associations come from all
possibly
or
some
product
categories
are
product-related
distinguished concepts, rather than two ends of a
non-product-related
brand concept continuum (Bhat & Reddy, 1998).
reflect
external
in
The idea suggests that functional brand image and
characteristics.
According to Biel (1992), there are three
symbolic brand image can exist simultaneously.
elements of brand image: manufacture image
When existing in different product categories,
(corporate image), product image, and competitor
different degrees of the two elements are still
brand image.
inevitable (Bhat & Reddy, 1998).
These three components influence
The synthesized
Aaker (1996) suggested that a firm should
effect of three elements of brand image also result in
consider its brand as a product, an organization, a
the influence on user image.
person, and a symbol to ensure the texture and depth
consumer image on the brand.
In most literatures, brand images are generally
of brand identity. When the created concepts from
distinguished by two categories, functional or
the four dimensions of brand identity are transmitted
symbolic, on the basis of consumption behavior
to consumers, the consumers interpret these concepts
motivation.
as brand image (Aaker, 1996).
The rational school suggests that
Additionally,
consumers are rational as well, attempting to
according to Aaker (1996), brand image is created by
maximize overall effects of products or services.
the interactions among one product itself, country of
According to the rational school’s perspective, in
origin,
I-172
brand
personality,
organization,
and
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
accessorial
brand
product.
These
connective
中華民國九十五年九月出版
that could generate switching behaviors (Oliver,
elements not only influence the creation of brand
1999).
image, but also affect one another simultaneously.
different levels of brand loyalty: consumers with no
According to Aaker’s (1996) view, there are five
loyalty, consumers with habitual purchase, consumers
varieties of values stemming from the creation of
with satisfaction of transfer cost, consumers with
brand image : 1) brand image is able to facilitate
product favorability, as well as consumers with deep
consumers acquisition and transfer of
commitment (Aaker, 1991).
information
There are five kinds of consumers with
again from the beginning; 2) brand image provides
The advantages of acquiring consumer brand
the base of product differentiation and position; 3)
loyalty include the need for the corporate to lessen
brand
and
information providence, and a decrease of inherent
consumer benefits, which is the main reason why
risk in consumer purchase (Teas & Grapentine, 1996).
consumers purchase and use the brand; 4) brand
According to Aaker (1996), the values of brand
image creates brand association whose positive effect
loyalty contain reduction of marketing costs, balance
results in a positive brand attitude and transference
of trade leverage, attraction of new customers, and
into a brand value; and, 5) brand image provides the
acquisition of time responding to competitive threats.
basis of product extension. The congruence of brand
Three advantages of owning brand loyal customers
image and new products offers consumers the reasons
are also identified by Chaudhuri (1999), which are the
to purchase new products.
requirements of less advertising, acquisition of the
image
embodies product attributes
Keller (1998) proposed that brand equity comes
greatest level of repeat purchases, and the generation
from the effects of brand marketing which was
of consumers’ acceptance to pay a premium for the
regarded as consumer brand knowledge. He showed
service or product. Loyal can be interpreted in the
that brand knowledge is one kind of memory mode of
ranges from affective loyalty to behavioral loyalty
associative networks which are composed of brand
(Morgan, 2000).
awareness and brand image.
Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Havitz, 2000; Pritchard,
He suggested that
&
Similarly, some researchers (e.g.,
brand images are reflected by types of brand
Havitz,
Howard,
1999)
suggest
that
the
associations, favorability of brand associations,
measurement of brand loyalty comprises consumer
strength of brand associations, and uniqueness of
brand attitudes and consumer buying habits.
brand associations.
The four dimensions of brand
aspects of brand loyalty associated with the
association have been described in the previous
behavioral and attitudinal concepts are emphasized by
section.
some researchers. Dick and Basu (1994) agreed that
Brand Loyalty
attitude/behavior relationship is a logical orientation
Two
Brand loyalty is the core of brand equity
for brand loyalty research. They suggested that the
because loyal consumption can be expected to result
relationship be causal and simultaneous. Baldinger
in a predictable sales and profit stream (Aaker, 1996).
& Rubinson’s (1996) findings suggested that when
Brand loyalty can be regarded as a concept of attitude
consumers held their behavioral brand loyalty, it was
or behavior because consumers still hold a deep
the degree of their attitudinal brand loyalty which
commitment to repatronize a preferred service or
decided whether they would consistently repurchase
product consistently, in spite of the potential causes
the products in the future. Datta (2003) also noted
I-173
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
that if measures of loyalty were only focused on the
Dickson and Sawyar’s (1990) study found that as
repurchase aspect, they would be invalid to evaluate
consumers perceived purchased products as promoted
overall loyalty.
ones, the value of consumer brand image would be
Still, some researchers, however,
(e.g., Reynolds & Arnold, 2000; Chaudhuri, 1999)
decreased.
viewed both attitudinal brand loyalty and behavioral
and Cox (1990), Grewal, Baker, and Borin (1998),
brand loyalty as a single construct to measure brand
studied the influential effect of store name, brand
loyalty.
name, and price discount on consumer brand value as
The Relationship between Sales
Promotion and Brand Equity
Among
the
empirical
studies
about
Corresponding to the findings of Cox
well as consumer purchase intention.
They found
that discount depth was negatively related to
the
perceived quality.
That means, the more discount
relationship between sales promotion and brand
depth, the less perceived quality.
equity, many investigated the linkage of sales
inferred that information of price promotion would
promotion
not absolutely result in positive purchase intention
and
consumer
brand
repurchase
attitudes/behaviors, or did the related analysis
The finding
and might damage brand value.
Garretson and Clow (1999) utilized dental
between sales promotion and a single dimension of
It seems that empirical studies seldom
service as an experimental product to measure the
investigated the correlative analysis between sales
influence of coupon promotion on service quality,
promotion and overall brand equity.
perceived risk, and purchase intention.
brand equity.
Many empirical
more
discount
generated
less
They found
studies showed the negative influence of sales
that
value
on
promotion on brand equity.
professionalism of dental services. The researchers
In Neslin and Shoemaker’s (1989) study, two
concluded that the negative perception would hurt or
thousand families were studied; coffee was the
offset positive economic incentive which discount
studied product category. The finding was that, after
coupons attempted to bring.
promotion, the personal repurchase ratio remained
Raghubir and Corfman (1999), taking service
unchanged while the overall repurchase ratio was
products (dental services, health club, and mutual
reduced by impact of sales promotion.
funds)
This study
as
products
of
their
empirical
study,
inferred that the reduction of overall repurchase
investigated the relationship of price promotion on
resulted from the fact that most of the subjects in this
brand value before using products. They suggested
study were new brand buyers and brand switchers
that if consumers who never had purchase experience
whose incentives for the purchase were sales
on a promoted brand or a new promoted brand, they
promotion.
Relatively, the repurchase ratio would
would regard the promoted brand as one with lower
decrease after the promotion period, which also
quality. The study found that price promotion had a
brought about the decease of overall repurchase.
negative impact on consumer brand value before
However, this reason did not absolutely contribute to
consumers began using a new product. Yoo (2000)
creating a reduction of individual repurchases.
also found that price promotion generated negative
Cox and Cox (1990) found that promotion in
effects on perceived quality and brand association
advertising effectively led to consumer association
which were dimensions of brand equity.
Owing to
that products from this store were low-price.
price
consumer
I-174
variability
which
increases
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
uncertainty about brand quality, the decrease of
responding to the finding that sales promotion
quality perception and increase of considered
negatively impacted consumer’s product evaluation,
perceived risk may happen (Yoo et al., 2000).
suggested that marketers should be aware of the
Exploring the effects of advertising (long-term
utilization of the sales promotion with involvement of
brand-building activity) and sales promotion (a
pricing when they are concerned about brand
short-term sales incentive) on consumer attitudes,
credibility.
brand equity, and market share from a bounded
Even though many studies stated the negative
rationality view. Low and Mohr (2000) conducted a
impacts of sales promotion on brand equity, some
study.
researchers still contended that brand equity was not
In their study, senior marketing managers
were interviewed to process the survey either in
negatively influenced by sales promotion.
pretests or in real survey. They found that brands
Inman, and McAlister (1992) hypothesized that sales
with higher budget allocations for advertising have
promotion has a negative impact on brand value.
more advantages than brands with those to sales
They directly measure the effect of price promotion
promotion in terms of influencing consumer attitude,
on brand value on three brands and four product
brand equity, and market share.
The short-term
categories (microwavable popcorn, saline solution,
advantage perspective (sales promotion) has been
cereal, mouthwash), with college students as study
criticized for the past decade.
subjects and the grocery stores on campus as the
Hence, the study’s
Davis,
researchers suggested that marketers should invest
experimental environment.
budgets in advertising instead of sales promotion if
evaluations contained three elements which were
they attempt to deliver positive brand image to
affective, cognitive, and behavior intention. Their
consumers to get the promise of a powerful brand
study found that sales promotion leveraged the ratio
franchise.
Low and Mohr (2000) implied that sales
of consumption, but it did not create a negative
promotions, a lazy approach to marketing, did not
impact on brand value. Davis et al. (1992) inferred
create a more consistent result as some of the
that consumption type in grocery stores was of
marketing mix techniques.
low-involvement consumption type; therefore sales
Swait & Erdem (2002), investigating temporal
The measures of brand
promotion enabled creating instant and positive
consistency in sales promotion on consumer product
effects.
evaluations and choices, found that price variability
low-involvement consumption would be forgotten by
may result in the decrease of consumer utilities and
consumers, and accordingly, negative effects of sale
thus choices.
promotion on brand equity would not be generated.
study
in
The study, corresponding to their
1998,
showed
that
marketing
However, the promotion content with
Curious
mix
about
whether
frequent,
shallow
sales
promotion or infrequent, deep promotion was more
promotion, decreased perceived quality and eroded
powerful to keep brand profitability than infrequent,
consumer’s value on perceived quality. One reason
deep promotion was, Jedidi, Mela, & Gupta (1999)
is that it is difficult for consumers to predict
developed a joint probity choice and regression
opportunities for promotion savings, and thus
quantity model to test consumers’ attitudes to these
systematic utility may be decreased, which eventually
marketing activities.
generates product-choice switch.
deep promotion kept consumer brand loyalty, but a
inconsistency,
e.g.,
price
variability
in
These researchers,
I-175
They found that infrequent,
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
price cut could induce consumer to make changes in
equity of the product or the company.
To investigate consumer response to the four
brand choice decisions in the short term; with respect
to long-term promotion, consumers were shown to
different
favor changes in regular price over promotional
coupons,
discount.
that,
“buy-one-get-one-free,” Gilbert and Jackaria (2002)
exposure,
conducted a study to analyze the associated
consumers learned to wait for good deals and
relationships between the four consumer promotional
stockpile when they valued the deals. Accordingly,
tools and consumption behaviors of 160 respondents
consumers adjust the reference price of products
consisting of 42 percent male, 58 percent female.
lower to increase their sensitivity to the regular price.
They found that only the price discount promotional
Hence, it is unnecessary for consumers to switch
tool was statistically significant. According to these
brands, and brand loyalty is maintained. However,
two researchers’ inference, coupon promotion may be
this study also found that there was a negative
perceived by consumers as a nuisance that cost time
perception of long-term promotion.
and
responding
These
to
researchers
frequent
inferred
promotion
It is possible
promotional
price
efforts
to
techniques
discounts,
redeem,
and;
that
includes
samples,
based
on
and
the
that consumers believe that deeper discounts in the
self-perception theory, sample promotion generates
long run stand for lower quality (Jedidi et al., 1999).
prevention of future purchasing. Among these four
O’Guinn et al. (2000) categorized sponsorship
sales
promotional
approaches,
price
discount
as one of sales promotional tools. Sponsorship has
promotions were found to have the effect of inducing
transformed itself into a significant element of an
households to switch brands and of creating an earlier
integrated communications strategy (Cornwell, Roy,
buy
& Steinard, 2001).
significantly resulted in brand switching behavior and
Investigating how managers
behavior,
and;
“buy-one-get-one-free”
viewed combination of their marketing programs and
purchase acceleration.
the
their
several sales promotions have been noticeable, thus
sponsorship over time, Cornwell, Roy, & Steinard
facilitating brand recognition and brand recall for
(2001) designed a two-phase survey to request
future purchases, without a significantly negative
manages to report on the impact of sponsorship on
influence on brands.
brand-equity-building
capabilities
of
The study showed that
The findings showed that sponsorship
Sivaramakrishnan and Manchanda’s (2003)
supported by marketing programs (advertising and
study hypothesized consumers who were cognitively
promotion) could be a role to contribute to
busy would be likely to assess the value of price
perceptions of differentiating the brand from its
discount offers because they got a great deal of
competitors, and subsequently add financial value to
information, e.g., product attributes—color, shapes, or
the company or the brand. The researchers implied
sizes.
that
which
pretest were asked to assess the importance of various
sponsorship-linked marketing strategy was the focus
attributes of a TV as the indices of their consumption
of the marketing communications platform, which
attitudes/behaviors. In the study, nine added recall
could activate linkage of the consumer’s accepted
questions were addressed to measure whether the
information and brand node in the consumer’s mind,
respondents had been concerned about the product
and subsequently be helpful of increasing brand
and price information in the advertisement or
brand equity.
sales
promotional
programs
in
I-176
Thirty-seven undergraduate students in a
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
Cronbach-alpha assessing reliability of
incentive on consumers’ perceptions and purchase
value items achieved at 0.94. The study found that,
attitudes, found that, in the coupon promotion,
corresponding to their hypotheses, cognitively busy
consumers with no coupons still had to pay money
consumers would perceive less on the magnitude of
corresponding to the original price to buy the product;
the discount and the actual savings than those who
therefore, the original price was still an effectual price
were cognitively less busy.
and consumers did not downvalue the quality of the
promotion.
It implied that when
consumers who were cognitively less busy acquired
promoted product.
enough
coupon
product
information
and
completely
The study also found that, in
promotion,
consumers
would
have
processed it, they evaluated the products and value by
perceptions of advantageous price inequity which
attribution information, e.g., brand name, rather than
resulted in leverage of perceived value. Moreover,
price, to make a good purchase decision. Based on
some consumers, in coupon promotion, believed that
the finding, from a managerial standpoint, price
some people purchased the same products with the
discount offer would not make cognitively busy
original price.
consumers influence their perceptions about brand
internal reference prices. These researchers inferred
image or perceived brand equity.
However, the
that coupon promotion remained overall a perceived
authors stated that limitation was that the results were
value of promoted products much more than a direct
only for one product category and for a particular
price-off deal did.
Hence, most consumers did not lower
Hypothesizing
price range.
Although a large amount of studies demonstrate
influenced
brand
consumer
image
attitudes
and
positively
behavioral
that sales promotion do not facilitate acquirement and
intention on brands, Rio, Vazquez, and Iglesias (2001)
maintenance of brand equity, sales promotions are
conducted a study to test the effects of groups of
still widely utilized in marketing practice. Currently,
brand
various tools for sales promotions constantly are
identification, social identification, and status) on
increased, not only focusing on price promotion.
consumer responses.
Many tools for nonmonetary sales promotion,
sports shoes that were suitable for sport and casual
centering on psychological dimension and preventing
wear were used as a reference; two focus groups with
from damaging brand equity, are utilized more often.
sports shoes uses were measured, and; various
Martin and Monroe (1994) in their study, found that,
distributions in the sector were requested to conduct
in the promotion situation, the consumer perception of
in-depth interviews. Among these four categories of
price fairability was based not only on comparison
brand image functions, guarantee function was
between internal reference price and price in
associated positively with all three dependent
discounting, but also the comparative difference of
variables (consumer’s willingness to recommend the
prices paid by him/her and others.
Martin and
brand , consumer willingness to pay price premium
Monroe inferred that consumer favorability on
for it, and consumer willingness to accept brand
different sales promotion was differentiated by
extensions)
consumer perception of price fairability.
identification and status only partially influenced
Chen, Monroe, and Lou (1998), in their study
investigating the influence of price promotion
image
function
(guarantee,
personal
In this study, non-specialized
whereas
personal
identification,
either one or two dependent variables.
From the
study’s results, the implication for managing and
I-177
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
marketing brand image can be drawn. Guarantee of
appreciation
quality is the appraisal that the brand is reliabe, and
techniques and some independent variables, including
the brand efficiently fulfills its performance qualities.
a high direct degree of premium, positive consumer
For marketers attempting to focus on managing brand
brand attitude, great interest in the premium, high
image can make good use of product guantee
deal-prone consumer traits, and high compulsive
promotion
consumption prepositions.
to
generate
positive
communication
of
premium-based
promotional
However, the study’s
researchers suggested that the study only revealed
towards the brand.
Lee (2002) chose managers from 26 consumer
behavioral intention and consumer reactions.
In
convenience product categories to assess brand
terms of brand equity, the researchers suggested to
manager’s evaluations of sales promotions. In his
test how well the premium is integrated with the
study, coupons and lucky draws were utilized to
brand’s positioning and brand’s extending in the
estimate the model explaining how managers used
future study.
a
Guerreiro, Santos, SilveiraGisbrecht, and Ong
price-oriented, incentive-based promotion while lucky
(2004), evaluating questionnaires returned from
draws
non-price-oriented,
marketing managers who were familiar with their
communication-based promotion. This study found
companies’ product promotion, and attempting in
that
promotional
tactics.
represented
Coupon
a
represented
heavily
favored
acquiring marketing managers’ perceptions relating to
promotion
over
bonus pack promotion, found that current managerial
non-price-oriented one. The outcome stemmed from
perception of costs favor bonus over price discount
the influence of competition and short-term pressures.
because most of the respondents agreed that bonus
However, the study also found that managers
packs may facilitate negotiation with the clients.
appeared
non-price-oriented
Also, the study found that respondents believed that
promotion than consumers’ expectation. Hence, the
most clients, without recognizing the production cost
study
sales
of the bonus units, appreciated the economic benefit
short-term
of bonus units that were regarded as the selling price
subjects
(managers)
price-oriented
to
sales
under-utilize
suggested
promotion
may
inferred
facilitate
price-oriented
to
meet
objectives while non-price-oriented sales promotions
of the purchased units.
Brand value may not be
may be helpful for strengthening consumer brand
negatively impacted on non-price sales promotions
equity and achieving long-term objective.
through consumer’s price perception; however, the
To acquire a better recognition of consumer
respondents of the study believed that objectives for
responses to premium-based promotional offers,
offering bonus packs were concerned less about
d’Astous and Jacob (2002) conducted a three-study
aspects of client loyalty and brand loyalty.
research program to evaluate what kinds of situations
Even though the aforementioned nonmonetary
can gain consumer appreciation of premium-based
sales promotions are appealing for not eroding
promotional offers.
long-tem consumer brand values, there are still
The development of the study’s
procedure was made up of a tested typology of
contradictory
premium-based promotions, a qualitative study, and a
nonmonetary sales promotions have negative effects
survey of adult consumers.
on consumer brand franchise and brand equity.
The results showed that
there were positive relationships between consumer
exploratory
studies
showing
In
Siebert’s (1996) study, over two-thirds of the
I-178
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
respondents perceived that the extra amount given in
that the generic products were effective for patients,
bonus packs was either directly or indirectly paid by
they stuck to the usage of that brand product, without
consumers.
switching to another brand.
The researcher inferred that price
Not corresponding to
discount sales promotions did not have an absolute
what Daly (1993) reported that promotional gifts
negative
value.
(nonmonetary sales promotion) could facilitate in
Compared with bonus packs (non-price-oriented sales
creating a positive perception, reinforcing a buying
promotion), price-oriented sales promotion may result
decision, strengthening relationships and stimulating
in a more effective marketing advantage because of
interest, the study’s finding showed sales promotion
savings in warehousing, shipping, inventory, package
appeared not to achieve its goal to strengthening
design and size changes.
brand relationship with consumers.
impact
on
consumer
brand
Ong, Ho, and Tripp
CONCLUSION
(1997) also found that bonus packs did not absolutely
guarantee to get positive consumer attitudes. Studying
Measuring the dimensions of brand equity,
whether bonus packs incentive is regarded as an
researchers have generated various approaches from a
aggressive offer and brings about brand incredibility,
financial view, a marketing view, and a synthesized
Ong et al. (1997) found that industry perceived that
view of finance and marketing.
bonus pack offers attracted current users of the
approach defines brand equity from the dimensions of
products more than new users, whereas consumers
cash flow, revenue, or cost, and quantifies brand
perceived that bonus pack offers appeared not to have
equity with financial indices; the marketing approach
much credence about the concepts of “no price
proposes that brand equity is able to create profits for
increase” and extra quantity.
both corporate and consumers through consumer
The financial
In Parker and Pettijohn’s (2003) study, the issue
perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors; the synthesized
about the argument for /against promotional gifts or
approach of finance and marketing perceives that
free samples was especially to be investigated. The
sources of brand equity are able to establish brand
researchers selected physicians in a mid-western
advantages in consumer minds, and accordingly,
regional health center as the subjects who responded
create financial brand values for the corporation.
to the questionnaires which centered on the topics
Measuring the dimensions of brand equity is
about whether promotional gifts or free samples from
one important and valued issue for current researchers.
pharmaceutical representatives would influence their
However, the brand itself holds both intangible and
decisions to prescribe, and whether pharmaceutical
abstract characteristics, and there are no fixed and
direct-to-consumer advertising would increase the
universal brand equity measures that are suitable for
request possibilities of both drug brand choices and
all industries. Synthesized from Aaker’s (1991;1996)
drug
that
and related research, brand equity has been measured
direct-to-consumer advertising made the rates of both
from various marketing aspects, e.g., brand extension,
drug category and drug brand choices higher, and the
premium price, brand awareness, brand association,
rates of physicians’ prescriptions on those drugs also
brand image, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand
increased. However, most respondents (physicians)
attitude, and other proprietary brand assets, etc.
reported that the acceptance of gifts or samples did
Each determinant has a significant impact on building
not affect their prescription.
brand equity.
category.
The
findings
showed
When they believed
I-179
Four dimensions of brand equity are
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
reviewed specifically in previous sections, which are
can be cumulated for a long term by temporary sales
brand awareness, brand association, brand image, and
promotions.
Based on various incentives (e.g., economic
brand loyalty,
Brand awareness is the concept of brand
recognition and brand recall (Keller, 1998).
Three
incentive, psychological incentive, or communicative
incentive),
some
researchers
categorized
sales
types of brand association which are basic to the
promotion tools into varied groups varieties, e.g.,
concept of brand image are attribute, benefit, and
monetary/nonmonetary
attitude (Keller, 1998).
Brand image, providing
price-oriented/ non-price-oriented sales promotions,
consumers information to presume product quality
or instant/ postponed sales promotions. In terms or
and producing the purchase behavior (Bhat & Reddy,
monetary sales promotions (price-oriented sales
1998), is linked with three grouped concepts:
promotions), some researcher found monetary sales
functional brand concept, symbolic brand concept, or
promotions
experiential brand concept (Parke et al, 1986; Keller,
perceived quality that is one element of brand equity
1998).
Brand loyalty, the concept enabling
(e.g., Swait & Erdem, 2002); some found monetary
consumers to hold a deep commitment to rebuy a
sales promotions enabled inducing households to
preferred service or product consistently, is usually
switch brands (e.g., Gilbert & Jackaria, 2002).
measured by two categorized groups: attitudinal brand
the past two decades, not only is monetary sales
loyalty and behavioral brand loyalty.
Other
promotions widely launched, but also a great deal of
proprietary brand assets, e.g., patents and channel
nonmonetary sales promotions are increasingly being
relationship, aim at keeping competitors out of the
utilized for the purpose of psychological and
marketing share and maintaining consumer brand
communicative incentives. Some studies found that
loyalty.
nonmonetary
may
sales
erode
sales
promotions,
consumers’
promotions
values
could
on
For
prevent
Among market competitors, corporations try to
association about product price from directly hurting
design varied sales promotions to increase sales.
brand equity (e. g., d’Astous and Jacob, 2002), and
Sales promotions are impressive for having brought
could gain consumers’ acceptance of brand extensions
temporary and larger sales for corporation (Kotler,
(e.g., Rio et al., 2001); some studies showed that
2003).
However, different conclusions are generated
nonmonetary sales promotions brought about negative
from the research studying the relationship between
effects on consumer brand franchise and brand equity
sales promotions and brand equity.
Some show
(e.g., Siebert, 1997), or did not influence consumer
sales promotions damage brand equity (e.g., Swait &
brand loyalty on another brand (e.g., Parker &
Erdem, 2002) while some show sales promotions do
Pettijohn, 2003).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Theoretical Reformulations
not influence brand values (e.g., d’Astous & Jacob,
2002; Guerreiro et al, 2004).
That means, sales
promotions directly impact the sales, accompanied by
Brand equity has been a popular and potential
changes of consumer brand attitudes on brand equity.
marketing concept since the 1980s. The high valued
During the changed period, consumer brand loyalty,
concept, however, has not developed a universal
brand association, or brand image may even be
definition and measures because the views on brand
influenced because brand equity in consumer minds
equity from finance and marketing are relatively
I-180
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
Financial value, e.g., sales, cost, and cash
theory is integrated into an accommodating theory.
flow, is only of short-term figures while establishment
This will lead to better studies which probe the
of brand equity is a long-term investment.
It does
validity of various theories, and result in the
not appear adequate to utilize short-term financial
development of more sound measurement procedures.
value to define brand equity because establishment of
Hence, future studies need
brand equity can not get cost return in a short period
models or theories (e.g., psychological approach,
(Aaker, 1996). This lack of an accepted definition
utilitarian approach, price perception approach, or
obstructs the development of theoretical frameworks
communicative approach) on which sales promotion
on which significant brand equity research might be
is based
based.
order to get reasonable consistency of the results.
different.
cores
Additionally, Trevor (1998) identified two
to
measure
brand
equity,
which
consumer-based equity and market presence.
to decide beforehand
to test the influence of brand equity in
Critical or Analytic Reviews
are
Hence
Analytic reviews, an area of future scholarly
the optimal definition of brand equity should not be
inquiry
based on financial value only.
Synthesizing Aaker’s
experimental results in terms of sales promotion and
(1996) and Trevor’s (1998) propositions, brand equity
brand equity, are needed. Analytic reviews should
should be defined on the basis of establishment
not only focus on the linkage of sales promotion and
relevant to consumers so as to eventually acquire
brand equity, but also expand to the scope of
effects of financial value.
psychology,
For this reason, future
to
find
descriptive,
communication
correlative
research,
and
consumer
research of this paper may base this definition of
attitude/behavior research, and consumer brand value
brand equity as a theoretical definition for brand
research for deep and broad investigation about the
equity for future research to investigate managerial
topic.
and marketing implications of brand equity.
analysis is to examine the relationship between sales
Even though the purpose of this critical
Expenditures and frequency of sales promotions
promotion and brand equity, there is a need to review
have been impressive internationally for the past two
critically both theoretical literature and empirical
decades. It is commonly agreed that sales promotion
studies that provide support as to what categories of
primarily generate short-term behavioral effects.
sales promotion influence brand equity, and which
However, much research finds sales promotions may
categories of sales promotion have more influential
have undesirable cumulative long-term effects on
effects on brand equity.
consumer attitudes and behaviors.
Empirical Studies
Marketers and
researchers, based on utilitarian, psychological, or
Empirical studies are an area of future scholarly
communicative theories, develop various categories
inquiry to examine the relationship of sales promotion
of sales promotion to acquire short-term benefits and
and brand equity.
to simultaneously expect establishment of brand
has studied the issue; however, controversial views
equity.
and perceptions are generated.
for
Such theories and models might be helpful
corporation
and
consumers.
Actually, some empirical research
In future studies
However,
associated with this topic, the literature review should
investigating the influential effect of sales promotions
focus on not only sales promotion, but also business
on brand equity, researchers should be aware of what
marketing
theory seems most useful to address and how each
management associated with sales promotion.
I-181
management
and
psychological
The
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
mixed research design is recommended for getting
experiential brand image, which are categories of
more reliability of the study and more information
brand image.
For example, future
Although some reviewed empirical studies
research can choose various types of sales promotions
show that, preventing price perception from damaging
(e.g., discount vs. lucky draw) based on the utilitarian
brand equity, nonmonetary sales promotions do
approach and communicative approach to test
acquire higher consumer brand value than monetary
consumer brand values.
sales promotion does, future empirical studies still
explaining social phenomena.
Reviewed literature has noted that some
have to be clearly aware of experimental locations
empirical studies only examine the influence of sales
and times.
promotion on a single dimension of brand equity, e.g.,
a economic recession or in countries of poor economy,
brand loyalty or brand image.
the
It seems that
If the respondents in future studies are in
studies’
outcomes
may
be
contradictory.
empirical studies seldom investigate the correlative
Additionally, the chosen products category tested in
analysis between sales promotion and overall brand
future studies should also be carefully considered.
equity.
There is, therefore, a need for future
Brands with more amounts of advertising and
research aiming at identifying and understanding all
concreteness-oriented brand management may result
dimensions of brand equity to get the deep
from the original distinction in brand equity when
recognition about the impact of sales promotions on
compared to other brands. Moreover, the conclusion
brand equity.
of
The investigation and explanation of
future
empirical
studies
which
choose
the influential effect on only one dimension of brand
low-involvement products, e.g., convenience product
equity do not seem enough to cover all aspects of
categories, should only be generalized to the concept
consumers’ long-term brand values.
of sales promotion of low-involvement products.
Hence, the
overall brand equity, not only just individual aspects
Hence,
such as brand association and perceived quality,
products, e.g., laptop computers, and products in
should be served as the objective of measurement to
specific sections will not be suitably covered in this
test the effectiveness of sales promotions.
Hence,
scope of conclusion of this kind of empirical study.
this paper suggests that at least four factors of brand
Hence, some brand equity measures may only be
equity which may be influenced by sales promotion
appropriate for measuring frequently used product
should be examined to test the effect of sales
categories, rather than able to be applied to other
promotion in order to achieve overall conclusive
product categories.
investigation on the influence of sales promotion on
studying the relationship between sales promotion and
brand equity. Additionally, to deeply test short-run
brand equity should be aware of these limitations
and
when they design the developments of measure
long-run
communication
effects
of
sales
promotion, future research may further center on
For
promotions
on
high-involvement
Researchers interested in
procedures in their future studies.
REFERENCES
investigating the influential impact of sales promotion
on the trait of each dimension of brand equity.
sales
[1]Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity:
example, future empirical studies can examine the
significant
influences
of
sales
promotions
on
functional brand image, symbolic brand image, and
I-182
Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
235-238.
[2]Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building strong brands. New
[11]Campbell, L., & Diamond, W, D. (1990). Framing
York: The Free Press
and sales promotion: The characteristics of a good
[3]Baldinger, A. L., & Rubinson, J. (1996). Brand
loyalty: The link between attitude and behavior.
deal. Journal of Customer Marketing, 7(4), 25-31.
Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6), 22-35.
[12]Chambliss (2000). Using lexical decomposition to
quantify brand image. IMC Research Journal, 6
Retrieved May 17, 2004, from ProQuest Database.
(Spring), 49-53.
[4]Bhat, S. & Reddy, S. (1998). Symbolic and
functional positioning of brands. Journal of
[13]Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000).
A
Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32-44.
benefit
congruency
framework
of
sales
promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64,
[5]Biel (1992). How brand image drives brand equity.
65-81.
Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 6-12.
[6]Blackston, M. (2000). Observations: Building
[14]Chaudhuri, A. (1999). Does brand loyalty mediate
brand equity by managing the brand’s relationships.
brand equity outcomes? Journal of Marketing
Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 101-105.
Theory and Practice, 7(2), 136-146. Retrieved May
24, 2004, from ProQuest Database.
[7]Blattberg, R, C., & Neslin, S, C. (1990). Sales
promotion: Concepts, methods, and strategies.
[15]Chaudhuri, A. (2001). The relationship of brand
attitudes and brand performance: The role of brand
Englewood Chiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(3),
[8]Bloemer, J. & Ruyter, K. (1997). On the
1-9.
relationship between store image, store satisfaction
and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing,
[16]Chen, C. (2001). Using free association to
examine
32(5/6), 499-513.
the
relationship
between
the
[9]Brasco, T. C. (1988). How brand name are valued
characteristics of brand associations and brand
for acquisitions. In : L.Leuthesser ED, MA:
equity. The Journal of Product and Brand
Marketing Science Institute, 88-104.
Management, 10(7), 339-352.
[10]Bullmore, J. (1984). The brand and its image
[17]Chen, K, B., Monroe, K, B., & Lou, Y. (1998).
revisited. International Journal of Advertising, 3,
The effects of framing price promotion messages
I-183
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions.
evaluations or does it? Additional disconfirming
Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353-372.
evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 29,
143-148.
[18]Chen, S, S., & Monroe, K, B. (1998). The effects
on
[25]Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1999). Customer loyalty:
consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions.
Toward an integrated conceptual framework.
Journal of Retailing, 74, 34-45.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
of
framing
price
promotion
messages
22(2), 99-113. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from
[19]Cornwell, T.B., Roy, D. P. & Steinard, E.A.
ProQuest Database.
(2001). Exploring managers’ perceptions of the
impact of sponsorsip on brand equity. Journal of
[26]Dickson, P, R., & Sawyer, A, G. (1990). The price
knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers.
Advertising, 30(2), 41-52.
Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 42.
[20]Cox, A, D., & Cox, D. (1990). Competing on
price: The role of retail price advertisements in
[27]Dobni, D. & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of
shaping store-price image. Journal of Retailing,
brand image: A foundation analysis. Advances in
66(4), 428.
Consumer Research, 17, 110-119.
[21]D’Astous, A., & Jacob, I. (2002). Understanding
[28]Dodson, J, A., Tybout, A, M., & Sternthal, B.
consumer reactions to premium-based promotional
(1978). Impact of deals and deal retraction on
offers. European Journal of Marketing, 36(11/12),
brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research,
127-1287.
15, 72-81.
[22]Daly, E. (1993). Advertising impact: Using the
[29]Dommermuth, W, P. (1989). Promotion: Analysis,
power of promotional gifts. American Salesman,
creativity
and
strategy.
38(10), 16-21.
Publishing Company.
Boston:
PWS-Kent
[23]Datta, P. R. (2003). The determinants of brand
[30]Engle, J., Blackwell, R.D., & Miniard, P.W.
loyalty. Journal of American Academy of Business,
(1995). Consumer behavior. New York: The
3(1/2), 138-149.
Dryden Press.
[24]Davis, S, J., Inman, J., & McAlisyer, L. (1992).
[31]Farquhar, P. H. (1990). Managing brand equity.
Promotion has a negative effect on brand
I-184
Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 7-12.
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
analytic model of the relationships between
[32]Gilbert, D.C., & Jackaria, N. (2002). The efficacy
of sales promotions in UK supermarkets: A
involvement,
psychological
commitment,
and
consumer view. International Journal of Retail &
loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 256-270.
Distribution Management, 30 (6/7), 315-323.
Retrieved May 12, 2004, from ProQuest Database.
The
[39]Jedidi, M., Mela, C. F., & Gupta, S. (1999).
influence of coupon face value on service quality
Managing advertising and promotion for long-run
expectations,
profitability. Marketing Science, 18(1), 1-22.
[33]Garretson, J. A., & Clow, K. E. (1998).
risk
perceptions
and
purchase
intentions in the dental industry. The Journal of
[40]Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. J. (1993).
Measuring
Services Marketing, 13(1), 59-74.
value
with
scanner
data.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10
[34]Graeff, T. R. (1996). Image congruence effects on
(March), 9-22.
product evaluations: The role of self-monitoring
and public/private consumption. Psychology &
brand
[41]Kapferer, J. (1992). Strategic Brand Management.
New York: The Free Press.
Marketing, 13(5), 481-499.
[35]Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N.
[42]Katherine, N.L. (2001). What drives customer
(1998). The effect of store name, brand name and
equity. Marketing Management, 10(Spring), 20-25.
price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and
[43]Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring,
purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3),
and
331-352.
Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.
[36]Guadagni, P, M., & Little, J, D. (1983). A logit
managing
customer-based
brand
equity.
[44]Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management:
model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data.
Building, measuring, and managing brand equity.
Marketing Science, 2, 203-238.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
[37]Guerreiro, R., Santos, A.D., SilveiraGisbrecht,
[45]Kim, P. (1990). A perspective on brands. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 7(4), 62-67.
J.A., & Ong, B.S. (2004). Cost implications of
bonus pack promotion versus price discounts.
[46]Kotler,
P.
(1988).
Marketing
management:
Analysis, planning and control. New York:
American Business Review, 22(2), 72-81.
[38]Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (2000). A path
I-185
Prentice-Hall.
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
[47]Kotler,
P.
(2000).
中華民國九十五年九月出版
Marketing
Brand Management, 4(4), 23-34.
management:
Analysis, planning, implementation, and control.
[54]Mela, C, F. Gupta, S., & Lehmann (1997). The
long-term impact of promotion and advertising on
New Jesey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
consumer brand choice. Journal of Marketing
[48]Lasser, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995).
Research, 34, 248-261.
Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of
[55]Moran, B. (2002). Brand equity measurement tool.
Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-20.
Informed ARF Research Council.
[49]Lee, C. W. (2002). Sales promotions as strategic
communication: The case of Singapore. The
[56]Morgan, R. P. (2000). A consumer-oriented
Journal of Product and Brand management, 11
framework
of
brand
equity
and
loyalty.
(2/3), 103-114.
International Journal of Market Research, 42(1),
65-78.
[50]Low, G.S., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Advertising vs.
sales promotion: A brand management perspective.
[57]Mullen, M., & Mainz, A. (1989). Brand, bids and
The Journal of Product and Brand Management,
balance sheets. Acquisitions Monthly, April, 24-27.
[58]Neslin, S, A., & Shoemaker, R, W. (1989). An
9(6), 389-411.
alternative explanation for lower repeat rates after
[51]Martin, G.S., & Brown, T. J. (1990). In search of
brand
equity:
the
conceptualization
promotional
and
competitive
marketing
strategies.
American
Management Association.
[52]Martins, M., & Monroe, K, B. (1994). Perceived
[60]Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty?
Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.
Allen, C.T. and Roedder John, D. (Eds), Advances
in Consumer Research, 21, Association for
Marketing
[59]Norton, P. (1989). The manager’s guide to
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 431-438.
price fairness: A new look at an old construct, in
Journal of
Research, 26, 205-213.
measurement of the brand impression construct.
Marketing Theory and Applications, 2, American
purchase.
[61]Ong, B.S., Ho, F.N., Tripp, C. (1997). Consumer
perceptions of bonus packs: An exploratory
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 75-78.
[53]Meenaghan, T. (1995). The role of advertising in
brand image development. Journal of Product &
I-186
analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(2).
101-116.
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
price promotions affect pre-trial brand evaluations?
[62]Park, C.W., Joworski, B. J., & MachInnis, D.J.
Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 211-222.
(1986). Strategic brand concept-image management.
[70]Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2000).
Journal of Marketing, 50 (4), 135-145.
[63]Parker, R.S., Pettijohn, C.E. (2003). Ethical
Customer loyalty to the salesperson and the store:
considerations in the use of direct-to-consumer
Examining relationship customers in an upscale
advertising and pharmaceutical promotions: The
retail context. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
impact on pharmaceutical sales and physicians.
Management, 20(2), 89-88.
[71]Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. R., & Oliva, T. A.
Journal of Business Ethics, 48(3), 279-288.
[64]Percy, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (1992). A model of
(1993). Brand equity and the extendibility of brand
brand awareness and brand attitude advertising
names. International Journal of Research in
strategies. Psychology & Marketing, 9(4), 263-274.
Marketing, 10, 61-75.
[65]Peter, J. P., & Loson, P. (1994). Understanding
[72]Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R., Iglesias, V. (2001). The
consumer behavior. Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D.
effects of brand associations on consumer response.
Irwin, Inc.
The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(4/5),
410-426.
[66]Porter, S. S., & Claycomb, C. (1997). The
influence of brand recognition on retail store image.
[73]Rossiter, J. R. & Percy, J. (1987). Advertising and
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6,
promotion management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[74]Roth, M.S. (1995). Effects of global market
373-387.
conditions on brand image customization and brand
[67]Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R.
(1999). Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in
performance. Journal of Advertising, 24(4), 55-72.
service contexts. Journal of the Academy of
[75]Wilkie, W. (1986). Consumer behavior. New
York: John Wiley an Sons.
Marketing Science, 27, 333-348. Retrieved May 24,
[76]Schiffman, L.G. & Kanuk, L.L. (1994). Consumer
2004, from ProQuest Database.
[68]Quelch,
J,
A.
(1989).
Sales
behavior. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
promotion
[77]Seibert, L. J. (1996). Are bonus packs profitable
management. NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
[69]Raghubir, P., & Corfman, K. (1999). When do
I-187
for retailers? Chain Store Age, 72(12), 116-123.
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
Interbrand Group.
[78]Shimp, T, A. (1993). Promotion management and
marketing
communications.
Chicago:
Dryden
[85]Style, C., & Ambler, T. (1997). Brand equity
measuring what matters. Australian Journal of
Press.
[79]Shocker, A. D., & Weitz, B. (1988).
Marketing Research, 5(1), 3-10.
A
perspective on brand equity principles and Issues.
[86]Swait, J. & Erdem, T. (2002). The effects of
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute,
temporal consistency of sales promotions and
88-104.
availability on consumer choice behavior. Journal
of Marketing Research, 39(3), 304-321.
[80]Shoemaker, R, W., & Shoaf, F, R. (1977). Repeat
rates of deal purchases. Journal of Advertising
[87]Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy
for growth in a cost-control world. Journal of
research, 17, 47-53.
Advertising Research, August/September, 26-30.
[81]Sivaramakrishnan, S., Manchanda, R.V. (2003).
The effect of cognitive busyness on consumers’
[88]Teas, R. K., & Grapentine, T. H. (1996).
perception of product value. The Journal of
Demystifying brand equity. Marketing Research,
Product and Brand Management, 12 (4/5),
8(2), 24-29. Retrieved May 2, 2004, from ProQuest
335-346.
Database.
[82]Simon, C.J., & Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The
[89]Trevor, R. (1998). Measuringthe true value of
measurement and determinants for brand equity: A
brands:
Can
you
afford
financial approach. Marketing Science, 12(Winter),
Seminar-Berlin September.
not
to.
Esomar
[90]Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An
28-52.
[83]Srivastava, R & Shocker, A. D. (1991). Brand
examination of selected marketing mix elements
Equity: A perspective on its meaning and
and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of
measurement. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Marketing Science, 28 (2), 195-213.
[91]Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of
Institute, 91-110.
[84]Stobart, P. (1989). Alternative methods of brand
valuation.
Murphy,
J.
Brand
valuations:
Establishing A True and Fair View, London: The
I-188
price, quality and value: A means-end Model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52(July), 2-22.
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
[92]Zeithaml,
V.A.,
&
Kirmani,
A.
(1993).
Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image.
Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role
in Building Strong Brand, Iowa City: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 143-161.
I-189
中華民國九十五年九月出版
遠東學報第二十三卷第三期
中華民國九十五年九月出版
I-190