Dissertation Final

A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PERCIEVED BRAND EQUITY OF AUDI, BMW,
MERCEDES AND VOLKSWAGEN AMONG STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER
Robin de Wit
Assessment noº F15365
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of
Chester for the degree of Marketing with Psychology (BAH-C)
CHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL
May 2012

A comparative investigation into to the perceived brand equity and marketing communications of
Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester
Robin de Wit University of Chester1
Acknowledgements
I am greatly thankful to my dissertation supervisor Gautam Rajkhowa who supported me throughout
the entire duration of the investigation and helped me keep the investigation manageable and
heading in the right direction.
A special thanks goes to the marketing and psychology lecturers who sacrificed their lecture time in
order to help me with my data collection and of course to all those who participated and shared
their perceptions with me for the sake of the investigation.
Finally I would like to thank all my friends and family for providing me with the social support that
allowed me to bring this project to a successful conclusion.

Abstract
This investigation aimed to investigate the subject of perceived brand equity with regards to Audi,
BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester. The sub topics that
were investigated were general brand equity perceptions, perceived brand depreciation, gender
differences and influence of relationship to automobiles on perceived brand equity.
The methods of data collection adopted were a survey for the primary quantitative data and content
analyses of relevant corporate data to collect secondary information.
The results showed there was a higher perceived brand equity for Audi relative to the other brands,
perceived brand equity is stronger for males than it is for females and the ownership of an
automobile, or a close relative who owns a studied brand, influences the perceived brand equity in a
positive way.
It was concluded that Audi was the brand carrying most brand equity among the sample at the
University of Chester, this was due to perception that the brand did not focus on one single unique
selling point. Also it was concluded that males would have higher levels of brand equity as they are
the main target audience of all the studied brands and thus more perceptive to the respective
marketing communications. Finally it was concluded that the closer your relationship is to
automobiles, either through personal ownership or a family owning a studied brand, the higher the
subject’s appreciation of the products.

Declaration of Originality
As the Owner of the research and dissertation I, Robin de Wit, can declare that this work is
original and that I have not submitted it for any other academic purpose. I also declare that
the work is mine and that all references to previous work – either by me or others- are fully
referenced
Signed: _________________________
Date: _________________________

Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction 8
1.1. Background to the Research 8
1.2. Research Question 8
1.3. Justification for the Research 9
1.4. Methodology 9
1.5. Dissertation Outline 9
1.6. Chapter Summary 10
2. Literature Review 11
2.1. Introduction 11
2.2. Body 11
2.2.1.Branding 11
2.2.2.Brand Equity 12
2.2.2.1. Perceived Quality 15
2.2.2.2. Differentiation and Positioning 15
2.2.2.3. Price Premium 15
2.2.2.4. Brand Associations 16
2.2.2.4.1. Information Processing and retrieval 16
2.2.2.4.2. Positive attitudes 17
2.2.3.High Involvement Products 17
2.2.4.Product Life Cycle 17
2.3. Gap in the Literature 17
3. Methodology 19
3.2. Research Philosophy 19
3.3. Research Approach 20
3.4. Methods of data collection 20
3.4.1.Sampling method and details of research sample and population 20
3.4.2.Questionnaire design and rationale for adopted methods 21
3.4.2.1. Dollarmetric 21
3.4.2.2. Associations 21

3.4.2.3. Likert Scale 21
3.4.2.4. Demographics 22
3.4.3.Content Analysis 22
3.4.4.Data analysis 23
3.5. Ethical Considerations 23
4. Presentation of Findings 24
4.2. Analysis of research participants & non respondents 24
4.3. Presentation & discussion of findings 24
4.3.1.Presentation of primary data 24
4.3.1.1. General Primary data 24
4.3.1.1.1. Dollarmetric scale results 25
4.3.1.1.2. Brand Associations 25
4.3.1.1.3. Brand Preferences 28
4.3.1.2. Gender differences 28
4.3.1.2.1. Dollarmetric 28
4.3.1.3. Car Ownership 31
4.3.2.Presentation of Secondary data 36
4.3.2.1. Depreciation 36
4.3.2.2. Marketing communications messages 36
4.3.2.2.1. Audi 36
4.3.2.2.2. BMW 37
4.3.2.2.3. Mercedes 37
4.3.2.2.4. Volkswagen 37
5. Interpretation of findings and conclusions 39
5.2. Critical Evaluation of Adopted Methodology 39
5.3. Conclusions about the Research Objectives 40
5.3.1.General 40

5.3.1.1. Dollarmetric 40
5.3.1.2. Associations 41
5.3.1.3. Likert Scale 41
5.3.1.4. Conclusions research aims 1 & 2 41
5.3.2.Demographics 42
5.3.2.1. Gender Differences 42
5.3.2.1.2. Associations 42
5.3.2.1.3. Gender conclusions 43
5.3.2.2. Car Ownership 43
5.3.2.2.2. Associations 44
5.3.2.2.3. Car Ownership conclusions 44
5.4. Conclusions 45
5.5. Limitations of the Study 46
5.6. Opportunities for further research 46
6. References 47
7. Appendices 51
7.1. Appendix 1. Supervisory Meeting Forms 51
7.2. Appendix 2. Questionnaire 55
7.3. Appendix 3. Participant Information Sheet 57

List of Figures Page
Figure 1. Aaker, D. (1991) brand equity model 12
Figure 2. Keller (2000) CBBE model, six brand building blocks 13
Figure 3. Keller (2000) CBBE model, sub-dimensions of brand building blocks 13
Figure 4. Riezebos, R. (2003) Brand-Added Value/Brand Equity Model 14
Figure 5. Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) Customer Equity Framework 14
Figure 6. Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) “modal” model of memory 16
Figure 7. The research process “onion” source: Saunders,M et al. 19
Figure 8. Perceived value over time for Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen 25
Figure 9. Adjectives associated with Audi 26
Figure 10. Adjectives associated with BMW 26
Figure 11. Adjectives associated with Mercedes 27
Figure 12. Adjectives associated with Volkswagen 27
Figure 13. Section C, means of all brands 28
Figure 14. Mean perceived values for males and females for Audi 29
Figure 15. Mean perceived values for males and females for BMW 29
Figure 16. Mean perceived values for males and females for Mercedes 30
Figure 17. Mean perceived values for males and females for Volkswagen 30
Figure 18. Brand associations of females for Audi 31
Figure 19. Brand associations of males for Audi 31
Figure 20. Mean rating over time car ownership and relation for the Audi A4 33
Figure 21. Mean ratings over time car ownership and relation for the BMW 3 Series 33
Figure 22. Mean rating over time car ownership and relation for the Mercedes C Class 34
Figure 23. Mean rating over time car ownership and relation for the Volkswagen Golf 34
Figure 24. Brand association for Audi with regards to car ownership 35
Figure 25. Brand association for BMW with regards to car ownership 36
Figure 26. Brand associations for Mercedes with regards to brand ownership 36
Figure 27. Brand association for Volkswagen with regards to brand ownership 37
Table of Tables
Table 1. Depreciation in % of studied brands 39

1. Introduction
1.1. Background to Research
In modern society products no longer stand alone as just the physical product, but instead have
been integrated under the sheltering umbrellas of corporate brands. Brands also have gone beyond
Kotler (2000) definition of “the name associated with one or more items that is used to identify the
source of character of the items” and instead have become a more complex framework of
“identifying a product and distinguishing it from the competition” (Guzman, F., 2005). In order “to
create a strong and distinctive image in the mind of the consumer” (Kohli & Thakor, 1997)
The building of a strong and distinctive brand, also known as “branding” which has become the
priority for many organizations. This is because a brand “is a sign loaded with meaning that we
choose to consume because we feel we relate to it” (Williams, 2000)
The holy grail of branding is to build brand equity. Brand equity is defined by Farquar (1989) as “the
added value with which a given brand endows a product” and the “enhancement in perceived utility
and desirability through which a brand name confers on a product”. The two leading models used to
analyse brand equity are Aaker (1991) Brand equity model and Keller (2001) CBBE (Consumer Based
Brand Equity) model, each model describing different elements and phases of gaining and creating
brand equity.
1.2. Research Question
Brands use targeting strategies to reach a specific segment in order to build their brand and
consequently acquire brand equity. Audi BMW and Mercedes are three brands that have similar
target segments, similar products, long heritages and the same country of origin yet each brand has
positioned itself away from its competitor through branding and building of brand equity.
An investigation into the quantitative and qualitative perceptions students have towards these
brands in combination with a content analysis of marketing communications will give insight into the
perceived brand equity among students, towards these brands.
In addition to the brands Audi, BMW and Mercedes the brand of Volkswagen was added as a fourth
and controlling variable. The Volkswagen brand also has an strong brand heritage and the same
country of origin as the other three. Though in contrast to the other brands it products are
significantly different and targets a distinct consumer segment; one that students should find
appealing and identify themselves with.

The research question of this investigation is:
 To investigate the subject of perceived brand equity of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and
Volkswagen in relation to their marketing communications, among students at the University
of Chester.
The research objectives of this investigation, in order to answer the research question, are:
 Objective 1: To evaluate the concept of perceived brand equity of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and
Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester
 Objective 2: To evaluate and compare the maintenance of perceived brand equity for Audi,
Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen over time
 Objective 3: To investigate gender differences in perceived brand equity for Audi, BMW,
Mercedes and Volkswagen
 Objective 4: To investigate the relationship of car ownership on perceived brand equity for
Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen
1.3. Justification of Research
The subject of brand equity and perceived brand value is one that has generated large amounts of
literature over the years and that is a key to an organizations long lasting success. Brand equity is a
subject that many organizations monitor very closely and is their priority to keep it within the
organization.
1.4. Methodology
The investigation will adopt a critical realism philosophy with a deductive approach. A questionnaire,
with a range of scales, will be used for quantitative primary data collection from a representative
sample. A content analysis of relevant marketing communications and corporate information will be
used to collect qualitative secondary data.
1.5. Dissertation Outline
The structure that this investigation will take is as follows: a critical literature review followed by a
detailed description of the methodology applied to this investigation. The next chapter will present
the findings followed by the interpretation of these. The investigations will finish by interpreting and

drawing conclusions from the data as well as indicating methodological weaknesses and areas for
future research
1.6. Chapter Summary
To summarize this dissertation will be looking at brand equity. The main focus will be on the
evaluation and investigation of the perceived brand equity and the maintenance of it for Audi, BMW,
Mercedes and Volkswagen. A range of quantitative and qualitative methods will be used for data
collection that will lead to the critical analysis and evaluation of these results and their relation to
the literature and opportunities for future research.

2. Literature review
2.1. Introduction
This chapter of the investigation will review relevant literature, present well established theories and
recent writings. The review of the literature will follow an “hourglass structure” starting broad and
then focusing on narrower and more focused topics. The main topic that will be investigated is
branding, this will be narrowed down to the topic of brand equity which will then narrow down to
the sub topics of brand equity: perceived brand quality and brand associations. The chapter will
finish by indicating the gap in the literature that this investigation aims to close.
2.2. Body
2.2.1.Branding
The Origin of “branding” comes from the word derived from Old English meaning “burning stick” and
ultimately from the Indo-European meaning “to be hot”. Livestock branding was used by ancient
Egyptians as early as 2700 B.C. as a theft deterrent. (Zyman Institute of Brand Science, 2005)
Over a period of more than 4 millennia this concept developed to be defined as “the name
associated with one or more items in the product line that is used to identify the source of character
of the items (Kotler, 2000). This concept was established in the 1980’s however a paradigm shift
took place and corporations went from buying production capacity (chocolate producer) to buying a
place in the mind of the consumer (Kit Kat). A more up to date definition of brand is that “it serves to
identify a product and to distinguish it from the competition” (Guzman, 2005), according to Kohli
and Thakor (1997) “the challenge for a brand today is to create a strong and distinctive image in the
mind of the consumer”.
Kotler and Armstrong (2010) introduce the concept of brand layers by stating that each product
consists of three “product layers”, each layer adding additional value to the product. Companies
must act on these levels to create customer value and the most satisfying customer experience. The
development of these product layers allows the building of a brand, brand equity and positioning the
brand in the mind of the consumer through developing brand knowledge structures (Keller, 2001).
Williams (1982) supports this idea by suggesting that “branding is a business strategy to encourage
consumption of one product over its competitors and it is a sign loaded with meaning that we
choose to consume because we feel we relate to it”.

2.2.2 Brand Equity
Brand equity is defined by Farquhar (1989) as the ‘added value’ with which a given brand endows a
product. Lasser, Mittal and Sharma (1995) define brand equity as the enhancement in the perceived
utility and the desirability a brand name confers on a product. According to Aaker (1991) brand
equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, which add to or
subtract from the value provided by a product or service to that firms customers. The assets can be
grouped into five categories each with their corresponding effects. Based in these assumptions
Aaker (1991) developed his brand equity model used as a measure of brand equity and a widely
accepted key framework in the field. Aaker’s brand equity model is detailed in figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Aaker (1991) brand equity model
As Aaker’s model is descriptive of the effects of brand equity elements and can be seen as a series of
guidelines towards building brand equity (Cooper & Simons, 1997). Keller (2001) developed his CBBE
(Customer based brand equity) model which outlines four key steps to building brand equity in
relation to the six “brand building blocks”, as shown in figure 2 below, each block with its own
separate sub-dimensions as detailed in figure 3 below.

Figure 2. Kellers (2000) CBBE model, six brand building blocks
Figure 3, Kellers (2000) CBBE model, sub-dimensions of brand building blocks
Since 1991, when Aaker introduced his well respected brand equity model, the marketing landscape
has experienced a major shift in communication processes, changes in the external business
environment and an increase in the speed and competitiveness that organizations have to operate
at. Not all authors agree that Aaker’s (1991) brand equity model is up to date and bulletproof.
Riezebos (2003) argues that Aaker’s model “did not make an explicit distinction between the added
value a brand offers customer/consumers, and the added value offered to the brand owner. And this
model also fails to list market share as a brand equity component”. Riezebos (2003) Brand-Added
Value/Brand Equity model, shown in figure 4 below, takes these new elements into account.

Figure 4. Riezebos, R. (2003) Brand-Added Value/Brand Equity Model
Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) argue that brand equity is a component of customer equity.
Besides brand equity, customer equity also consists of value equity and retention equity. The core
components of this model are present and closely linked to Aaker’s (1991) brand equity model but
are rearranged to build customer equity. Figure 5 below presents Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004)
Customer Equity Framework.
Figure 5. Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) Customer Equity Framework

Pickton and Broderick (2005) note that there are many more ways of measuring brand equity such
as the method proposed by Interbrand or Total Research Equitrend. But they claim that there is not
one single consistent framework proposed by the marketing industry and each method has its
strengths and weaknesses.
2.2.2.1 Perceived Quality
Perceived quality is defined by Zeithaml (1988) as the customer’s perceptions of the overall quality
or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives.
Perceived quality generates values through 5 different channels, it gives consumers a reason to buy,
it differentiates and positions the brand, it can aid in gaining distribution channels, it facilitates
brand extensions and it provides the brand with the option of a price premium (Aaker, 1991).
2.2.2.2 Differentiation/positioning
According to Kapferer (1994) in an increasingly global market, brands are the only truly international
language. Differentiation is a distinguishing feature that creates a brand advantage (Pickton &
Broderick, 2005) also it acts as a way of positioning away from the competition (Fill, 2005). In order
to do so the brand needs to obtain a unique position in the mind of the consumer; positioning
(Guzman, 2005). Positioning is the degree to which a brand is seen as different from others (Dahlen,
Lange, & Smith, 2010). A differentiating association can be a key competitive advantage. If a brand is
well positioned (with respect to competitors) upon a key attribute in the product class (Aaker, 1991)
2.2.2.3 Price premium
Kotler and Armstrong (2010) describe the price as the sum of all values that customers give up in
order to gain the benefits of having or using a product or service. A price is based on several factors
such as production costs, transportation cost and the desired profit margin, but some brands can
also charge a price premium. A price premium is the increase in price due to superiorly perceived
product attributes or in other words brand equity is an exclusive and distinguished position in the
mind of the consumer for which a price premium can be charged (Keller, 2001). Brand equity assets
have the potential to provide a brand with a price premium. The resulting extra revenue can be used
(for example) to enhance profits, or to reinvest in building more equity (Aaker, 1991).
Price premiums can be measured and this is often done through customer research. Customers are
asked what they would pay for various features and characteristics of a product. Termed a
dollarmetric scale, this survey provides a direct measure of the value of a product carrying a certain
brand name. (Aaker, 1991)

American Motors used a variant of the “dollarmetric scale” to measure the value of their brand
name. They presented participants with “unbadged” car models and asking them how much they
would pay for them and presenting them with “badged” car models and asking how much they
would pay for them. The price was approximately $10,000 for the unbadged car and approximately
$13,000 for the badged car. When Chrysler bought American Motors this car was sold for a price
close to the one suggested by the study (Aaker, 1991)
2.2.2.4 Brand associations
2.2.2.4.1 Information processing and retrieval
An association is a compact chunk of information, stored as memories, which provides a consumer
with an opinion of the brand. Atkinson’s and Schifrin’s (1968) “modal” model of memory, as show in
figure.3, can be used to show how associations and memories are obtained.
Figure 6. Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) “modal” model of memory
The model shows the importance of grasping the audience’s attention and the rehearsal in order for
a brand association to be retrieved successfully at the point when intending purchase. The stronger
an association is and corresponds with consumer values the stronger the memories associated to
the brand will be and therefore easier to recall when faced with the purchase decision.
2.2.2.4.2 Positive attitudes
The authors don’t agree in the title but Aaker (1991) describes it as “positive attitudes” and Keller
(2001) describes it as “consumer feelings”. Positive brand associations are emotional responses and
reactions with respect to the brand (Keller 2001). Erk (2002) claims that rewards induce subjective
feelings of pleasure and contribute to positive emotions and attitudes. They can act as positive
reinforcements by increasing the frequency and intensity of goal-directed behaviour. Recently it has

been shown that these reward mechanisms are also involved in the regulation of social relationships
such as dominance and social rank, which some high involvement products also focus upon.
Erk et al. (2002) conducted a neuro-imaging experiment in which participants were stimulated
through visual images of cars of the following categories: sports cars, limousines and family cars. The
aim of the experiment was to determine the mean ATR activity of participants towards each
category. Findings showed that participants were significantly more attracted to the sports car
category. There was also higher atractivity for the limousines than to the small cars but results were
not significant. The researchers concluded their experiment by stating that their hypothesis “of an
activation of the reward circuitry by attractive sports cars was confirmed”.
2.2.3 High involvement products
A high involvement product is a high capital value good that is purchased only after long and careful
consideration (www.businessdictionary.com). The Product that this investigation focuses upon is
high end automobiles; these are classified as “high involvement products”.
2.2.4 Product Life Cycle
Every product has a certain “product life cycle”. This concept consists of four stages: introduction,
growth, maturity and decline. The introduction and growth stage require high investment with low
profits. In the maturity stage high profits are made but investments must be made to maintain the
products position (Bearden, Ingram and Laforge, 1998). Products carrying an equity rich brand are
able to complete the introduction and growth stage more rapidly than an unbranded product, will
enjoy a longer maturity and a slower decline. (Alabar, 2012)
2.3 Gap in Literature
The current public available literature is very strong in describing different elements needed to build
a brand and brand equity and it describes certain phenomena that occur due to such actions.
However there is a missing link between the subjects of brand equity, premium automobiles and
student perceptions; which this investigation will make a contribution to.

2.4 Chapter summary
To summarize there are many models with regards to brand equity, two of which have been
analysed in detail with regards to the relevant literature. The two models evaluated were Aaker’s
(1991) brand equity model and Keller’s (2001) CBBE model. Both models have been proposed based
on large amounts of literature. Although the models are different and have different focuses they
tend to agree on the basic principle of what brand equity is and how it is created. A gap in the
literature has been identified and the investigation aims to provide new insights.

3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
A dissertation is founded on research, which is an effort to find things out (Fisher, 2007). This
process should involve a degree of philosophical underpinning. This chapter of the investigation is
based on the research process “onion” (see figure 4) suggested by Saunders et al. (2003) as a
template for its structure, The chapter will commence by detailing the methodological paradigm and
research design on which this research is based, followed by a description of the inner layers of the
research onion. This shall be followed by the presentation of details of the sample population and
the sampling method employed. This will be followed by a review of the different research
approaches and strategies and will present a rational approach to the choices made for data
collection methods and methods of analysis used. Finally the ethics involved in the research will be
discussed to be followed by the chapter summary.
Figure 7, The Research Process “onion” source: Saunders, M et al... (2003)
3.2 Research Philosophy
As Fisher (2010) highlights, epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. The research
epistemology of this investigation will be the one of ontological critical realism. Critical realism
claims that there is a level of reality that is not easily accessible because it is hidden from common
view. Miles and Huberman (1994) expressed it as “we look for a process or mechanism, a structure
at the core of events that can be captured to provide a causal description of the forces at work”. As

opposed to phenomenology or positivism, critical realism shares values with ontological realism,
which aims to be scientific, but takes a Gnostic stance in the sense that is believes the truth to be
subjective, hidden and is gained through personal struggle.
This stance is appropriate for this investigation because it aims to investigate student perceptions,
personal interpretations of reality, of products within the automotive industry. The positivism stance
would not fit this research objective because it only has interest in the tangible. The realism stance
does come to terms with the subjective human nature but still considers reality to be to easily
accessible. Critical realism on the other hand argues that there is a level of reality below the
everyday levels of events and our experiences of them making it the appropriate stance for this
investigation.
3.3 Research Approach
The research approach of the investigation will be deductive. Deductive logic is used for theory
testing, as inductive logic is used for theory building, since this investigation aims to test the theories
application for a specific sample making it an appropriate approach. The research strategies that will
be used to implement the deductive approach are both surveys for primary data and case studies for
secondary data. Surveys allow for collection of large amounts of quantitative data that can be
statistically analysed while the strengths of case studies are that they can provide clear qualitative
insight into themes and messages. The time horizon will be cross sectional to provide insight into the
studied issue at a given moment in time.
3.4 Methods of data collection
3.4.1 Sampling method and details of research sample and population
For the collection of primary research it was decided to employ the method of purposive sampling;
all available participants were asked to participate. Convenience sampling involves choosing
respondents at the convenience of the researcher. This is the sampling of people to which the
researcher has easy access (Fisher, 2007)
The population that this sample intends to represent is that of the undergraduate students at the
University of Chester for the academic term of 2011/12. The entire student population consists of
12,438 students with a 2:1 ratio of females to males. From this a sampling frame was drawn, this
should mirror the population of interest (Bradley, 2010)
The sampling frame consisted of 139 participants consisting of 1st
and 3nd
year business studies and
1st
and 2nd
year psychology. Subject from both business and psychology where used to be increase

external validity and the sample size. Ratio of females to males was 82:57. To further break down
the demographics of the sample 25 1st
year business, 31 3rd
year business, 10 1st
year psychology and
73 2nd
year psychology students.
3.4.2 Questionnaire design and rationale for adopted methods
The body or content of a questionnaire consists of questions that cover information needed to solve
the marketing problem (Proctor, 2005). The following methods and scales have been selected for
collection of data that will provide insight into perceptions and attitudes towards Audi, BMW,
Mercedes and Volkswagen and their respective brand equities.
In the introduction of the questionnaire together with the instructions for participants 4 images
were of 4 cars, one for each brand studied. Brace (2004) suggests that “Showing logos can alter the
responses to questions about brand image. It is normal to establish prompted brand awareness
before asking about images of certain brands”. To make the brand as equal as possible for Audi its
A4 model was chosen, for BMW its 3 Series model and for Mercedes its C Class model. As a
controlling variable the Volkswagen Golf was added. To further control variables it was said students
should “consider the products to be in a good condition” (see appendix 2 for questionnaire)
3.4.2.1 Dollarmetric
Aaker (1991) suggested that a so called “dollarmetric scale” can be used to measure the value of a
brand name in comparison to another branded or unbranded product. A table was devised to where
participants would be able to enter their perceived values over time for the four brands easily (see
appendix 2, section A for Dollarmetric table).
3.4.2.2 Associations
To measure the effectiveness or marketing communications and general brand associations it was
decided to use a “connect the dots” task, where participants were asked to connect each of the four
brands to one of the four predetermined adjective. This allowed for the evaluation of which
adjectives were most associated with each brand.
3.4.2.3 Likert Scale
According to Brace (2004) many of the scales used in measuring attitude, brand perceptions,
customer satisfactions etc. are interval scale and Likert scales. As these are interval data, means and
standard deviations can be calculated”. A Likert scale will provide the researcher with quantitative
data” (Byman, 1989)

According to Brace (2004) “An attitudinal rating scale, used to rate respondent’s attitudes, can be a
Likert scale. This is a questionnaire technique where respondents are presented with a series of
attitude dimensions, they are asked how strongly they agree or disagree with a statement. … This
technique is easy to administer in self-completion questionnaires”
Tsiotsou (2005) conducted an investigation was to investigate the effect of perceived quality in
product involvement, overall satisfaction and purchase intention. The question was answered on a 7
point Likert scale. The author mentions that one of the limitations of the research is that “more
emphasis on the distinctive characteristics of perceived quality in different product categories
“There are four interrelated issues that questionnaire writers must be aware of when using the
Likert scale: Order effect, Acquiescence, Central tendency, Pattern answering. To avoid such issues it
is advised to keep the number of the Likert scale questions to a minimum and put negative answers
on the left hand side of the scale” (Brace, 2004). To prevent these errors the number of Likert scale
questions was limited to 4 and the order effect was eliminated by alternating the brands in the
question. To prevent pattern answering and acquiescence the Likert scale was limited to 5 points.
3.4.2.4 Demographics
In order to be able to investigate all the aims thoroughly and perform meaningful statistical analysis
the questionnaire, as the last question, asked for some basic personal demographic data such
including: sex, course of study and is they or a close relative owned a car or one of the studied
brands
3.4.3 Content and analysis
For the collection of secondary data a content analysis marketing communications was applied to
recent commercials, papers or company documents on Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen. The
content analysis was performed partially using the guidelines provided by Zhang and Wildemuth
(2009). The steps used, in chronological order, where: preparing the data, defining the units of
analysis, develop categories and a coding scheme, code all text, draw conclusions from coded data
and report your methods and findings

3.4.4 Data analysis
To analyse the quantitative primary data, all data from the questionnaires was coded and
transferred to Microsoft Excel. This software was used to calculate means, standard deviations,
margins or error and draw charts
3.5 Ethical Consideration
There are ethical issues regarding data collection such as the participation being voluntary, if desired
anonymous and that subjects are given full informed consent. All participants were treated in
accordance with the BPS guidelines and were given full informed consent (see appendix 3 for
information sheet) this stated that participation was entirely voluntarily and that participants were
guaranteed anonymity. In order to guarantee anonymity no personally identifiable details were
required. The information sheet also provided participants with contact details in case the
questionnaire were to cause them any issues.
There is a debate about whether or not anonymity affects accuracy of responses for example Klein,
Mahler and Dunnington (1967) reported that responses became more distorted when subjects felt
threatened that their identities would become known. On the other hand Butler (1973) found that
confidentiality did not affect response rates or responses in comparison to non-confidentiality. For
this investigation knowing the identity of the participant would not benefit the experiment in any
way, so it was decided that participants where to remain anonymous.
3.6 Chapter summary
To summarize the investigation will take a critical realism stance to perform a deductive cross
sectional investigation using questionnaires to collect primary data and content analysis of case
studies to investigate brand perceptions, associations and to evaluate marketing communication
efforts. Participants have been treated ethically in accordance to BPS guidelines.

4. Presentation of Findings
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will present and describe all the relevant data. The data presented is in three sets. Data
from the general population will be presented first, followed by demographic data illustrating
gender differences will be presented followed by data with as variable whether or not the
participant or a close relative owns a car. Each of these data sets will have an individually analysis of
dollarmetric scale, brand association and the 5 point Likert scale, where appropriate.
4.2 Analysis of research participants & non-respondents
The conducting of the questionnaire returned 139 completed questionnaires approximately 1.16% of
the research population and indicates a margin of error of 8.38%1
. The sample was largely
representative; the sample consisted of participants from various years of study and two different
courses, also the ratio of females to males was 82:57, not identical to the universities 2:1 ratio
(http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/chester) but similar.
There were no non-respondents although some questionnaire were incomplete this was taken into
account during statistical analysis
4.3 Presentation & discussion of findings
The data collected consists of both primary and secondary data. Primary data was obtained through
questionnaires and secondary data from content analysis of corporate documents, papers and
marketing communications. First the results from the primary data will be presented followed by the
presentation of secondary data.
4.3.1 Presentation of Primary Data
4.3.1.1 General Primary Data
The processed data for the whole sample will be presented in the figures below2
, this is data from
the dollarmetric scale, brand associations, and the 5 point Likert scale will be presented.
1
Using: L=2√(p(100-p)/n)
2
Spread Sheet is available on www.mymarketingdissertation.com until 01/10/13

4.3.1.1.1 Dollarmetric scale results
One of the aims of this investigation was “To evaluate and compare the maintenance of perceived
brand equity for Audi, Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen over time”. Figure 8 below show the means
of the perceived product value for the corresponding age and brand.
Figure 8. Perceived value over time for Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen
Figure 8, shows the perceived values and depreciation of the products over time. It was observed
that Mercedes C Class is the highest valued brand (new = £33218, σ = 16340), BMW 3 Series the 2nd
highest valued (new = £30676, σ = 14629), Audi A4 the 3rd
highest (new = 27906, σ = 12855) and 4th
highest the Volkswagen Golf (new = 17590, σ = 7818). The products all depreciate at an equal rate
with insignificant differences
4.3.1.1.2 Brand Associations
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of marketing communications of the studied companies it was
investigated which adjectives were most associated with the corresponding brands. Figures, 9, 10,
11 and 12 below present the association with preselected adjectives to Audi, BMW, Mercedes and
Volkswagen.
£0,0
£5.000,0
£10.000,0
£15.000,0
£20.000,0
£25.000,0
£30.000,0
£35.000,0
New 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years
PercievedValue(£)
Percieved Brand Value Over Time
Audi A4
BMW 3 Series
Mercedes C Class
Volkswagen Golf

Figure 9. Adjectives associated with Audi
Figure 10. Adjectives associated with BMW
Performance
34%
Luxury
21%Sustainable
Future
12%
Innovation
33%
Audi
Performance
47%
Luxury
16%
Sustainable
Future
13%
Innovation
24%
BMW

Figure 11. Adjectives associated with Mercedes
Figure 12. Adjectives associated with Volkswagen
From the pie charts presented above, figure 9 shows that the two adjectives most associated to Audi
are Innovation (33%, L=8%) and performance (34%, L=8.045). Figure 10 shows that the adjective
mainly associated to BMW is performance (47%, L=8.47%). Figure 11 shows that the dominating
adjective associated with Mercedes is luxury (64%, L=8.15%) and figure 12 shows that the adjective
most associated with Volkswagen is sustainable future (71%, L=7.72%).
Performance
8%
Luxury
64%
Sustainable
Future
6%
Innovation
22%
Mercedes
Performance
10%
Luxury
1%
Sustainable
Future
71%
Innovation
18%
Volkswagen

4.3.1.1.3 Brand preferences
In order to measure brand preferences a 5 point Likert scale was used. The mean scores for each
brand were calculated and are presented in Figure 13 below.
Figure 13. Mean Likert rating of each respective brand
The bar chart, figure 13, above shows that participants rated Audi the highest on the 5 point Likert
Scale (3.05, σ=1.731). The 2nd
highest scoring brand was Mercedes (2.69, σ=1671), 3rd
highest was
Volkswagen (2.63, σ=1.667) and 4th
highest was BMW (2.62, σ=1.597)
4.3.1.2 Gender differences
One of the aims of this study is to investigate the influence of demographic differences. One of these
demographic differences that can be studied from the sample is the differences in gender
perceptions. Results for the dollarmetric scale and brand associations. The 5 point Likert scale
showed no significant differences.
4.3.1.2.1 Dollarmetric
The mean scores of the dollarmetric scale were calculated separately for the male and female
participants. The results for the Audi A4, for this analysis are presented in figure 14 below. Results
for BMW 3 Series are presented in figure 15, results for the Mercedes C Class are presented in figure
16 and the results for the Volkswagen Golf are presented in figure 17.
2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100
Audi
BMW
Mercedes
Volkswagen
General Likert Means, Section C

Figure 14. Mean perceived values for males and females for Audi
Figure 15. Mean perceived values for males and females for BMW
£27.244
£21.269
£15.494
£9.828
£28.846
£20.755
£13.006
£7.284
New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO
Audi
Females Males
£29.923
£23.114
£16.917
£10.615
£31.746
£23.146
£14.618
£8.546
New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO
BMW
Females Males

Figure 16. Mean perceived values for males and females for Mercedes
Figure 17. Mean perceived values for males and females for Volkswagen
The results presented in figures 14 -17 show males perceived the value of the new product to be
higher than females. Also it shows that females value the ageing products higher than males.
4.3.1.2.2 Brand associations
The “connect the dots” task only showed relevant gender differences with regards to Audi. No other
sex differences were found with regards to associations towards other brands. The findings of
gender differences in brand associations for Audi are presented in figures 18 and 19 below.
£31.096
£23.968
£17.835
£11.385
£36.227
£26.284
£17.191
£10.164
New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO
Mercedes
Females Males
£17.122
£13.299
£9.282
£5.350
£18.255
£12.805
£8.326
£4.414
New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO
Volkswagen
Females Males

Figure 18. Brand associations of females for Audi
Figure 19. Brand associations of males for Audi
The results shown in figures 18 and 19 show a difference between the associations of Innovation
with Audi; 28% of females in contrast to 41% of males. Associations to performance and luxury show
no differences, but males did associate sustainable future less with Audi than females do.
4.3.1.3 Car ownership
The final set of data will present findings with regards to the variable of relationship and ownership
to automobiles. Data was divided into three groups: those who indicated that they own a car, those
that indicated that a close relative owns a product of one of the studied brands and those that
indicated neither. One participant could be represented in two groups.
Performance
34%
Luxury
22%Sustainable
Future
16%
Innovation
28%
Females Audi
Performance
34%
Luxury
18%Sustainable
Future
7%
Innovation
41%
Males Audi

Figure 20 below represents the mean ratings for Audi A4 on the dollar metric scale. Figure 21
represents the same for the BMW 3 series, figure 22 for Mercedes C Class and figure 23 for
Volkswagen
Figure 20. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the Audi A4.
Figure 21. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the BMW 3 Series.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Audi A4
Car Owners
Relative owns studied
brand
No relation
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
BMW 3 Series
Car Owners
brand
No relation

Figure 22. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the Mercedes C
Class.
Figure 23. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the Volkswagen
Golf.
4.3.1.3.2 Brand Associations
In order to investigate the effect of ownership or the lack of it, on brand associations the data
gathered from section B of the questionnaire was divided and the results for the association for each
brand are presented in figures 24 to 27 below.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Mercedes C Class
Car Owners
brand
No relation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Volkswagen Golf
Car Owners
brand
No relation

Figure 24. Brand associations for Audi with regards to car ownership
Figure 25. Brand associations for BMW with regards to car ownership
0,00%
5,00%
10,00%
15,00%
20,00%
25,00%
30,00%
35,00%
40,00%
45,00%
Performance Luxury Sustainable
Future
Innovation
Audi
Car Owners
Relative owns studied brand
No relation
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
Future
Innovation
BMW
Car Owners
No relation

Figure 26. Brand associations for Mercedes with regards to car ownership
Figure 27. Brand associations for Volkswagen with regards to car ownership
The results from the associations test showed that the group that has a close relative who owns an
Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen scored the most accurate for each of the four brands. The
group that “owns a car” scored 2nd
most accurate. The final group, those that have no relation to
automobiles, had the least accurate. They highly associated Mercedes with luxury but for the
remaining brands no significant differences were observed.
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
Future
Innovation
Mercedes
Car Owners
No relation
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
Future
Innovation
Volkswagen
Car Owners
No relation

4.3.2 Presentation of Secondary Data
4.3.2.1 Depreciation
A depreciating asset is an asset that has a limited effective life and can reasonably be expected to
decline in value over the time it is used. Depreciation assets include such items as computers,
electronic tools, furniture and motor vehicles (www.ato.gov.au). Table 1 below shows the
depreciation, in %, of the four studied personal mobility vehicles.
New Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Depreciation values %
Audi A4 Saloon 3.0 TDI quattro 245 SE 4dr 100.00% 56.27% 46.74% 38.80% 33.58%
BMW 3 Series Saloon 330d M Sport 4dr 100.00% 57.14% 47.44% 39.50% 34.16%
Mercedes-Benz C-Class Saloon C220 CDI
Blue Efficiency SE 4dr
100.00% 65.26% 54.30% 45.10% 39.00%
Volkswagen Golf Hatchback 2.0 TDI 170 GTD
5dr
100.00% 64.73% 53.03% 43.22% 36.58%
Table 1. Actual depreciation in % of studied brands. Data obtained from www.whatcar.com.
The obtained data shows that Mercedes is the brand that best maintains it value over time, worth
39% or its original value after 4 years. Volkswagen does 2nd
best, being left with 36.58% after 4 years.
BMW comes 3rd
, being left with 34.16% of its original value after 4 years and Audi comes 4th
with
33.58% of its original value left after 4 years
4.3.2.2 Marketing communication messages
4.3.2.2.1 Audi
The German car manufacturer was founded in 1909 by Agustus Hoch, since 1965 Audi has been part
of the Volkswagen group (Haig, 2004). The brand was ranked in 2011 by Interbrand valued at $6.171
million and 60th
worldwide. Audi is currently positioned as the premium brand within the
Volkswagen group. The brand maintains the slogan “Vorsprung durch Technik”, translated as
advancements through technology, this slogan focuses on its German origin and heritage but also on
their unique selling point: Innovation (http://www.metadesign.com/clients/audi). Proof of this USP
can be found in the 2010 claim that the company hold 12860 patents, some of the best known are:
Quatro, S-tronic transmissions or e-tron electric concept car (www.audi.co.uk).

The exact target market is a corporate secret. From the products, pricing, and marketing
communications it is estimated that the target audience will be mainly males of the ages of 25 to 65
with an above average income. These individuals would choose the brand for its luxury, innovation,
and brand heritage and customer service. The Audi offers a new A4 Saloon starting from £23,500
(www.audi.co.uk).
4.3.2.2.2 BMW
BMW is also a German car manufacturer founded in 1916, when it produced aircraft engines. Since
then it moved on to become one of the best known car brands in the world. The brand was ranked
in 2011 by Interbrand at $24.554 million, 15th
worldwide. The firm currently promotes the brand
with the slogan “the ultimate driving machine”. This slogan indicates the brands focus on motoring
performance. BMW is positioned as a luxury and elicit brand, it appeals to people who don’t accept
second best and has become the perfect personality statement. (Haig, 2004)
A new BMW 3 Series Saloon from is priced starting from £25,000 (www.bmw.co.uk). The exact
target market is not available but marketing communications indicate that the target market is are
males aged 28-55 with high incomes that are looking for an “aggressive” ride
4.3.2.2.3 Mercedes-Benz
The German car brand Mercedes-Benz appeared first in 1924. And is currently ranked the highest of
the four brands in this study, according to Interbrand, who ranked the brand 12th
worldwide with an
estimated value of $27,445 million (www.interbrand.com). The company, in the UK, maintains the
slogan “the best or nothing”, focusing on the company’s focus on being the best, supported by the
fact that the brand has been focusing on establishing itself as a prestige brand (Haig, 2004). Also
being German is one of the strongest traits of Mercedes-Benz (Drawbaugh, 2001).
A new Mercedes C Class Saloon is available from £26,000 (www.mercedes-benz.co.uk). No official
target market is available but the marketing communications indicate and positioning indicates that
the target markets are males with a well above average income aged 30–65.
4.3.2.2.4 Volkswagen
The Volkswagen brand was founded in 1938 in Germany, its name is translated as “the people’s car”,
an idea that runs deep in its DNA. The company’s slogan is “Das Auto”, or “The car”. The slogan
focuses on what it indicates a car that will satisfy everyone. The consistency in design and product
personality has meant that the resale value of Volkswagen cars is among the highest in the industry
(Haig, 2004)

A new Volkswagen Golf available at a starting price of £16,000 (www.volkswagen.co.uk), cheaper
than any of the other brand. No official statement of the target market is available but it is widely
accepted that the company’s targets young males, aged 21-35
4.4 Chapter summary
To summarize this chapter presented all relevant primary data for the general population, gender
differences and the variable of car ownership. Also secondary data was presented containing details
on marketing communication messages that participants could have been exposed to.

5. Interpretation of findings and conclusions
5. 1 Introduction
The goal of the investigation was “to investigate the subject of brand equity, focusing on Audi, BMW,
Mercedes and Volkswagen and their relevant marketing communications, among students at the
University of Chester”. The perceived value, maintenance, associations and perceptions were
investigated using a questionnaire and a content analysis of secondary data provided insight into the
respective marketing communications. A sample of 139 students was selected through a
convenience sampling method. This chapter will interpret the data from the previous chapter in the
light of the corresponding literature.
5.2 Critical Evaluation of Adopted Methodology
The conducted investigation was generally successful and provided insight into the on-going themes
in and around brand equity. However, the investigation was not flawless and there are some issues
that need to be addressed.
The tool used for primary data collection was a questionnaire. Section C of the questionnaire, due to
its wording, was structured to avoid an order effect; sections A and B of the questionnaire were not
edited to avoid an order effect. This increased the likelihood of an order effect producing in the
sections A and B. Section B was especially vulnerable to this as the task had a limited set number of
answers
In an attempt to collect sufficient quantitative data questionnaire were conducted in large lectures.
It was observed that participants discussed the questionnaires with each other, possibly influencing
each other’s perceptions.
Due to a lack of data no separate analysis could be made with regards to “course of study”. However
this investigation is in the field of marketing and marketing students as well as psychology students
participated in the data collection. It is possible that marketing students would have been more
accurate, and thus affecting the results, on the dollarmetric and brand association sections as they
could have acquired the relevant brand knowledge or knowledge of depreciation as it is a topic
related to their subject of study. The results and findings have to be treated critically and further
research will be needed to confirm findings.

5.3 Conclusions about Research Objectives
5.3.1 General
Objective 1: To evaluate the concept of perceived brand equity of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and
Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester
Objective 2: To evaluate and compare the maintenance of perceived brand equity for Audi,
Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen over time
Figure 8 showed that the four brands depreciated at an almost identical rate. The highest valued
brand was the Mercedes C Class (£33,218), the second highest was the BMW 3 series (£30,676),
third highest was the Audi A4 (£27,906) and least valued was the Volkswagen Golf (£17,590).
These results from the sample are similar to the real depreciation data (table 1). This data showed
the same “brand hierarchy” thought this differed as participants over-valued Mercedes-Benz by
26%, BMW by 20%, Audi by 14.89% and Volkswagen by 6.25% compared to data from table 1.
These results indicate that for the studied population the brand that has the highest perceived brand
value is Mercedes. It was perceived to be most costly and was perceived o depreciate slightly less
than the other brands α > 0.05. BMW was perceived to contain second most brand equity and Audi
3rd
. Perceived depreciation of Audi and BMW was identical ±0.3%.
In accordance with Keller (2001) the higher perceived price of a product by its consumers, or price
premium, is caused by superiorly perceived product attributes and by product of brand equity.
According to Aaker (1991) a price premium is only the result of a high perceived quality and
according to Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) the premium price is a driver of value equity that
contributes to building customer equity.
According to the literature, from this section, it is interpreted that Mercedes is perceived to be most
superior compared to the other brands, though in accordance with the secondary data the
participants are most “out of touch” with this brand as they overvalued it by 26%. Over time the
brand, according to the results, maintain their perceived brand premium relative to each other.

The brand association data, figures 9-12, showed that participants correctly associated Mercedes
with Luxury (64%), BMW with Performance (47%) and Volkswagen with sustainable future (71%).
Also participants associated Audi with performance (34%) and the correct innovation (33%).
According to Pickton & Broderick (2005) differentiation is what creates a brand advantage and
Guzman (2005) this means gaining a unique position in the mind of the consumer. From the results it
can be interpreted that only Mercedes and Volkswagen have achieved this.
According to Riezebos (2003) the high levels of differentiation is a component of the brand added
value, which allows for the rapid data processing and increases customer satisfaction, all of which
are sub components of brand equity.
In section 5.2.1.1 Mercedes was identified as being most superior to the other brands. Audi and
BMW seem to be confusing brands for the participants as they are unable to distinguish between
the two brands. Volkswagen obtained the highest correct association this means, according to the
literature, that the Volkswagen has positioned itself most uniquely against the other presented
brand. This would make sense as Volkswagen targets a different segment and also operates in a
different sub-market away from Audi, BMW and Mercedes
5.2.1.3 Likert Scale
The Likert scale served to measure brand preferences and brand equity. The results (figure 13)
showed that there was a mean preference of 3.05/5, for Audi, 0.36 (7.3%) higher than the other
brands. BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen scored 2.63 – 2.685, only slightly above the null mean of
2.5.
According to Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) positive attitudes towards a brand generates brand
equity which in turn creates consumer equity, as Audi is the brand that scored highest Keller (2001)
would claim that Audi provokes the largest positive emotional response. Erk (2001) explains this that
Audi induces subjective feelings of pleasure and contribute to positive emotions and attitudes.
As the other three brands scored only slightly above the expected mean of 2.5, this would mean that
these brands evoke only slightly positive feelings but only minimal.

5.2.1.4 Conclusions about research aims 1 and 2.
To summarize Mercedes was perceived to have the highest price premium, Volkswagen and
Mercedes scored highest in the brand association section and Audi scored highest on the brand
preferences trail. The data seems relatively disperse but if it is considered that Audi was only over
valued 14.89% and scored significantly higher on the brand preferences trail.
In conclusion Audi can be considered to be the brand that holds most brand equity in the eyes of the
students at the University of Chester. It is the most preferred brand and was valued relatively
accurate in comparison to the other brands. The fact that, in the eyes of the sample, it is not purely
associated with one adjective seems to in favour of the brand as it is considered to be an all-round
product. Reasoning this was can be considered rational is the studied population has limited
financial resources; as is considered to be the case among students.
5.3.2 Demographics
The data collected from the primary data was divided for two demographic variables: gender and car
ownership. Data presented in the previous chapter will be analysed.
5.3.2.1 Gender Differences
Objective 3: To investigate gender differences in perceived brand equity for Audi, BMW, Mercedes
and Volkswagen.
Figure 14 to 17 present the mean results from the dollarmetric trail contrasting genders. The results
show the trend, of males perceiving the new product higher than females and females perceiving
the products to have a higher value when depreciating this is consistent among all of the studied
products.
The secondary data provided insight into the fact that males are the target audience of marketing
communications rather than females in addition many car programs such as Top Gear and fifth Gear
are directed towards a male audience (Jessop, 2009).
Since a price premium is a caused of perceived product superiority (Keller, 2001), in relation to the
data this means that males perceive the new automobiles to be more superior than females
perceive them to be. However as the products age females maintain, though decreasing, their
perception of superiority better than males do.

5.3.2.2 Brand Associations
There was only a significant gender difference with regards to the brand associations of Audi, figures
18 & 19. Males and females rated the brand in the same percentages on performance and luxury.
But for innovation females associated the brand with this adjective 28% whereas males did so in 41%
of the cases. Also females scored 16% on sustainable future and male participants 7%.
According to Aaker (1991) differentiation and positioning can be a key competitive advantage.
Secondary data (section 4.3.2.2.1) showed that the Audi brand primarily targets young males.
Previously it was also demonstrated that Audi was statistically the preferred brand out of the
presented four. This data shows that Audi is better differentiated among the males within the
sample and thus has a more unique place in the mind of the consumer (Kohli and Thakor 1997).
The fact that Audi is better differentiated among males seems to be a direct result of the
organizations marketing communications that the participants, over time, have been able to identify
themselves with better than females have.
5.2.2.4 Gender Conclusions
Through contrasting the data of the genders it was observed that males perceive new products to be
more superior than females do and also that Audi is better differentiated in the mind of the male
participants. Overall automobiles tend to be a “male product” and the data certainly indicates the
same.
5.3.3 Car Ownership
Objective 4: to investigate the relationship to car ownership on perceived brand equity for Audi,
BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen”
The sample was split into three categories: those that personally owned a car, those who have a
close relative who owns one of the studied brands and those who have neither. Participant could fit
into up to two categories.
The results, figures 20 and 21, suggest that having a close relative own an Audi or BMW increases
the perceived value and superiority of the product. It is assumed that the personal experience with
the products has led to an increase in their appreciation of the products and consequently increased
their perceived value.

For the Mercedes C Class, figure 22, those participants that have no relation no automobiles peak in
their perceived value of the new product, away from the trend observed with Audi and BMW. The
same is observed for the 10 year old product. The results suggest that have no experience with
automobiles over-value the brand more than those that do have such experience.
The Volkswagen Golf, figure 23, presents the same trends that were observed for the Mercedes C
Class and additionally for the product being 2 and 5 years old those participants who own a car rated
this product highest.
The secondary data has shown that Volkswagen predominantly targets 21-35 year olds, a target
audience to which the sample belongs. What is especially significant is that those that own a car
value the product higher than those who have a close relative that owns one of the four studied
brands. This is significant because it means that the group owning a car perceives the
Volkswagen Golf to more superior than the other two groups. Those that own a car are likely to
possess one that is very similar to the Volkswagen Golf.
The results, figures 24-27, from the associations trail showed that the group that has a close relative
who owns an Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen answered most accurately. The group that
“owns a car” scored 2nd
most accurate. The final group, those that have no relation to automobiles,
had least accurate answers.
According to Atkinson and Shirrfin (1968) modal model of memory, figure 6, one of the key stages to
creating firm memories and thus strong brand associations is the attention components. It is
assumed that such associations are mainly created through non-personal advertising (Dahlen, Lange
& Smith, 2010). However the data indicates that the groups of the sample that have been exposed
to the actual or similar products have created much stronger brand associations and those that have
had no such exposure seem to have relatively weak brand associations.
5.2.3.4 Car Ownership conclusions
The results show that having a direct relative owning an Audi, Mercedes, BMW or Volkswagen has a
consistent impact on the perceived brand equity: valuations are higher, associations more accurate
and appreciations slightly more defined. The 2nd
best performing group were those owning a car and
it was shown that not personally owning a car or having a relative who does so impacts the

participants’ perceptions, valuations and appreciations of the products in a negative way relative to
the marketing communications.
To conclude, marketing communications are vital to promote the brand its values but efficiency
could improve if those who have no relation to cars are targeted in different ways than those who
already own a car, or a close relative does so.

5.4 Conclusions about the research question
Research Question: To investigate the subject of brand equity, focusing on Audi, BMW, Mercedes and
Volkswagen their relevant marketing communications, among students at the University of Chester.
The research question was investigated through four research objectives, each objective
investigating a different aspect.
Research objective one showed that although Mercedes was perceived to possess the highest price
premium, Audi was the preferred brand amongst the sample as they considered the brand “smarter
to buy over an identical unbranded competitor”. It was concluded that the brand gained the
preference because it was not associated with attribute and rather multiple ones.
Although this conclusion initially goes against the theory that differentiation positions it away from
the competition (Fill, 2005), it is logical to state that a product that is perceived to be superior to its
competitors on multiple aspects will be the brand that acquires the largest enhancement in
perceived utility and desirability (Farquar 1989) building brand equity.
Research objective two provided little to no new insight into the subject of brand equity. It showed
that the brands were perceived to depreciate at a very similar rate minor differences were observed
between the brands but not large enough to provide conclusive evidence. It was however observed
that BMW and Audi were near enough perceived to depreciate at an identical rate ±0.3%, BMW was
though perceived to be slightly more costly.
Research objective three showed there are gender differences in the perceptions of the studied
automobile brands. The differences were assumed to be due to the marketing communications of
the brands that is mainly directed towards a male audience. From Atkinson and Shiffrin (1969)
modal model of memory this would grasp their attention rather than those of the females leading to
better differentiation in the mind of the male participants.
Research question four showed that owning a car or having a relative who own one of the studied
brand increases the perceived price premium of an automobile. It was reasoned that the close
contact with the product is a very strong force in building brand equity, a force that is stronger than
for example non personal communications to build brand association.
The overall conclusion is that brand equity is a key element in the marketing strategies of any
automobile brand. At the University of Chester the graduates seem to identify themselves most with
the Audi brand.

5.5 Limitations of the study
In an attempt to keep the research focused this also meant limiting the scope of the investigation.
From the sample used results can only be generalized to the University of Chester undergraduate
student population (aged 18-25, highly educated with a majority of females).
Because of the small sample size only a limited amount of data analysis techniques could be applied.
In hindsight more sophisticated data analysis software, such as SPSS, and a larger sample size would
have been able to provide more detailed insight into the data.
5.6 Opportunities for further research
Further research should be looking to collect more general data from a representative national or
regional sample. Another opportunity is to conduct research among a completely distinct and
limited population such as a different student population, age group or level of education to be able
to compare and contrast results to this investigation.
Further research can also look into the brand equity associated with other automobile brands. This
can take the shape of a completely different set of brand or products or can use the brand used in
this investigation and expand the investigation by adding new brands.
A final opportunity for further research is to use a quantitative approach for the collection of
primary data. A thematic coding system could provide insight into other aspect of brand equity.

References
Aaker, D. A., (1991) Managing Brand equity, capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York, The Free
Press
Alabar, T. T. (2012) Product Life Cycle and Brand Management Strategies. International Journal of Business
and Management Tomorrow, Feb. Vol.2 No.2, pp 1-11
Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In
Spence, K. W. The Psychology of learning and motivation (volume 2) New York: Academic Press pp.
89-195.
Audi (2012) Detroit showcar Audi e-tron. Retrieved on 05/02/12 from: http://www.audi.co.uk/audi-
innovation/concept-cars/detroit-showcar-audi-etron.html
Australian Government (2011) Guide to depreciating assets 2011. Retrieved on 07/02/12 from:
http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/IND00270218n19960611.pdf
Bearden, W. O., Ingram, T. N., Laforge, R. W. (1998) Marketing Principles and Perspectives. Boston: McGraw
Hill.
Brace, I. (2004) Questionnaire design: how to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market
research. Kogan Page Limited, London, United Kingdom
Bradley, N. (2010) Marketing research tools and techniques. Oxford university press, Oxford United Kingdom.
Byman, A. (1989) research methods and organizational studies. Loughborough, Routledge
Butler, R. (1973) Effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires for both sensitive and nonsensitive Items.
Journal of Applied Psychology 57: pp.348-349
Cooper, A., Simons, P., (1997) Brand Equity Lifestage: an Entrepreneurial revolution. London: TBWA Simons
Palmer.
Dahlen, M., Lange, F., & Smith, T. (2010) Marketing Communications, A Brand Narrative Approach.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Klein, S., Mahler, J., Dunnington, R. (1967) Differences between identified and anonymous subjects in
responding to and industrial opinion survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 51. pp.152-160
Drawbaugh, K. (2001) Brand in the Balance, meeting the challenges to commercial identity. London, Pearson
education limited.

Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A., Galley, L., Walker, H., (2002) Cultural objects modulaate reward curiosity.
NeuroReport 13:2499-2503
Farquahar, P, H. (1989) “Managing Brand Equity”, marketing research, 1, 24-33
Fill, C. (2005) Marketing Communications: Engagement Strategies and practice, 4th
Edition. London: FT
Prentice Hall
Fisher, C. (2007) Researching & Writing a Dissertation for Business Students, 2nd
Edition, Harlow: FT Prentice
Hall
Guzmán, F. (2005), “A Brand Building Literature Review,” The ICFAI Journal of Brand Management, 2 (3), 30-
48.
Haig, M. (2004) Brand Royalty, how the world’s top 100 brand thrive & survive. London, Kogan Page Limited
Interbrand (2012) 2011 ranking of the top 100 brand. Retrieved on 06/02/12 from:
http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-
2011.aspx
Jessop, J. (2009) Postmodern or past it, Masculinity and Top Gear, Mediamagazine, December 2009, pp.35-
40
Kapferer, J., N. (1994) Strategic brand management: New Approaches to creating and evaluating brand
equity. New York, Free Press
Keller, K. L., (2001) Building customer based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands. Cambridge,
Marketing Science Institute.
Kohli, C., & Thakor, M. (1997) Branding consumer goods; Insight from theory and practice, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 14(3), pp.206-219
Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management. The millennium edition, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
Kotler and Armstrong (2010) Marketing Principles, 13th
edition. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education Inc.
Lasser, W., Banwari, M., Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12 (4), 11-19
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for business students (3rd
edition) Harlow:
Prentice Hall

MetaDesign (2012) Audi. Retrieved on 03/02/12from: http://www.metadesign.com/clients/audi
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Pickton, D., & Broderick, A., (2005). Integrated Marketing Communications. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.
Proctor, T., (2005) Essential of Marketing Research, Fourth Edition. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.
Riezebos, R. (2003) Brand Management: a theoretical & practical approach. Financial times. Harlow, Prentice
Hall. Retrieved on 27/04/12 from http://www.eurib.org/en/knowledge-resource-centre/online-
recource-centre/brand-equity.html
Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., Lemon, K. N. (2004), Customer-centred brand management. Harvard Business
Review, September, p.1-10
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. (5th
ed.). Harlow,
England: FT Prentice Hall an imprint of Pearson Education
Thakor, M. V., Kohli, C. S., (1996) Brand origin: Conceptualization and Review. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 13 (3), 27-42
Tsiotsou, R (2005) The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase intentions.
Marketing Bulletin 16, note 4. Retrieved on 02/02/12 from: http://marketing-
bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V16/MB_V16_N4_Tsiotsou.pdf
University Guide (2012) University of Chester. Retrieved on 04/02/12 from:
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/chester
Williams, G. (2000). Branded? Products and Their Personalities. London: VandA Publications
Zhang, Y., & Wildemunth, B, M., (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications
of social research Methods to Question in Information and Library Science (pp.222-231) Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Zyman Institute of Brand Science, (2005). The Executive Guide to Branding. Corporate Performance and
Brands: The Risk and Return Effects of Branding. Retrieved on 12/1/12 from:
http://www.zibs.com/GuidetoBranding.pdf

Appendices
Appendix 1 A. Supervisory Meeting Form 18/11/11

Appendix 1 B. Supervisory Meeting Form 16/12/2011

Appendix 1 C. Supervisory Meeting Form 20/01/2012

Appendix 1 D. Supervisory Meeting Form 10/04/2012

Appendix 2. Questionnaire
Instructions
- Follow the instructions given in each section.
- Please answer all questions to the best of your ability, if you are unsure please ask the
researcher or skip the question.
Additional Information to help you answer this questionnaire
These are the cars and brands being studied:
Audi A4 BMW 3 Series
Mercedes C Class Volkswagen Golf
Section A.
Please complete the table, in each cell fill in what you perceive the value to be of the product with
the corresponding age.
Age of Car
B
R
A
N
D
Audi A4, 2.0d £ £ £ £
BMW 3 Series 2.0d £ £ £ £
Mercedes C Class, 2.0d £ £ £ £
Volkswagen Golf 2.0d £ £ £ £
Section B
Connect each brand to the one adjective you most associate it with
Audi Performance
BMW Luxury
Mercedes Sustainable Future
Volkswagen Innovation

Section C.
For each statement, rate on a scale of 1 – 5 (1=not at all, 5=completely), how much you agree with
each statement.
A) It makes sense to buy Audi instead of any other brand even if they are the same
1 2 3 4 5
B) Even if another brand has the same features as BMW, I would prefer to buy BMW
1 2 3 4 5
C) If there is another brand as good as Mercedes, I prefer to buy Mercedes
1 2 3 4 5
D) If another brand is not different from Volkswagen in any way, it seems smarter to buy
Volkswagen
1 2 3 4 5
Section D
Please fill in your personal information in the spaces provided below.
Sex Male /Female
Year of Study _______________
Course of study ____________________
Do you own a car? Y/N
Do you or a direct family member own an Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen? Y/N
If Yes, which one? _________________________
Thank you for your participation!

Appendix 3. Participant information sheet
Participant Information Sheet
An investigation into the perceived brand equity and achievements of marketing tactics
concerning the Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C Class and Volkswagen Golf among students at
the University of Chester.
Principal Researcher
Robin de Wit
Mob: 07794337067
Email: 08070938@chester.ac.uk
Invitation
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Participation in the project is entirely
voluntary. Before you decide it is important for you to understand why the research is being
conducted and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and
discuss with other if you wish. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you
would like more information. Take your time to decide whether or not you wish to take part
What is the Purpose of the study?
To investigate differences in brand perceptions between the Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C
Class and the Volkswagen Golf among 1st
, 2nd
and 3rd
year students at the University of Chester.
Why have I been chosen?
You have been chosen because you are a 1st
, 2nd
or 3rd
year student at the University of Chester
attending psychology or business studies. Approximately 150 further students will be asked to
complete a questionnaire
Do I have to take part?
It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part, and participation is completely voluntary but
responses are expected to be honest.

What will be my involvement if I take part?
Your involvement in the investigation will be in the form of completing a questionnaire. The
questionnaire will take longer than 10 minutes. You will be questioned about your perception
towards the products studied, their monetary value and values you’re associated with the brands.
Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?
Yes. Your data will be treated confidentially and you will not be asked to supply any data that could
identify you.
What will happen to the results of the research study?
The results will be written up as an academic dissertation. It will be stored in the archives at the
University of Chester and will be available on request. Analysed data will also be made available
online at www.mymarketingdissertation.com until at the latest September 2013.
Who is organising and funding the research?
This research is being undertaken as part of an academic program at the University of Chester
leading to the award of a BAH-A Marketing and Psychology.
Who has reviewed this study?
This study has been reviewed by the Ethics committee at the University of Chester and Guatam
Rajkhowa, lecturer at the business department at the University of Chester.
I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet for the study above and I have had
the opportunity to ask questions. Also I understand that my participation is voluntary but cannot be
withdrawn once submitted to the researcher. By signing below I confirm that I understand the
condition and agree to take part in this investigation
____________ ____/____/_______
Signature Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Dissertation Final

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Dissertation Final

Ähnlich wie Dissertation Final (20)

Dissertation Final