Concretizing and legitimizing brand equity as a strategic investment: A qualitative study in the Swedish retail industry

Concretizing and

legitimizing brand equity

as a strategic investment

A qualitative study in the

Swedish retail industry

Axel Eklund, Emil Arljung

Department of Business Administration Civilekonomprogrammet

Abstract

The retail industry has seen an immense increase in competition. Brands are becoming more similar, which makes it essential for firms to differentiate themselves against their competitors. The brand is considered the company's biggest intangible asset, possessing an array of different values for the company. Even though research continuously manifest the importance of establishing and managing a strong brand, companies are becoming increasingly less prone to invest in intangible assets such as the brand. The nature of profit maximizing companies has seen investments being directed at measurable and concrete areas, where the return on investment is readily established. One efficient way to work with brand assets is through brand equity, a concept with the main objective of understanding the customer. Brand equity is an approach that enables the firm to deliver value to the customer and being able to receive the benefits of increased margins and profitability from satisfied customers.

Previous research has stressed the importance and need for future scholars to investigate brand equity and provide practical examples of how to manage and develop brand equity in different industries. Brand equity investments further need to be connected to financial indicators in order to legitimize and manifest the financial importance and benefits of brand equity. In other words, concretization and legitimization are needed in order for brand equity investments to be regarded as strategically viable and efficient. Previous research is largely quantitative and focus on statistically reliable relationships. Meaning that there is an evident need for qualitative research explaining “how”, and not “if”. The purpose of this degree project is to develop a deeper understanding of how companies manage and develop their brand equity and how brand equity influences shareholder value in the Swedish retail industry.

Our degree project answers to the following research question: How do firms manage and

develop their brand equity in order to generate shareholder value in the Swedish retail industry?". In order for us to successfully answer our research question and achieve the

purpose of this degree project, we have therefore conducted a qualitative study. This study was carried out through six in-depth interviews with managers, working with brand related questions and responsibilities at established firms in the Swedish retail industry. The findings provide instrumental practical insights about actions and activities of how to manage and develop the four dimensions of brand equity; brand awareness, brand

associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Furthermore, the findings also provide a

deeper understanding as to how each dimension contribute to cash flows of shareholder value, short-term and long-term. Our findings manifest the relevance of each brand equity dimension and acknowledge how accurate and relevant the dimensions are in the retail industry currently.

The findings in our study are presented through a conceptual model, adopted in order to concretize and legitimize brand equity investments. The conceptual model encapsulates and visualizes concrete actions and activities for each dimension, as well as how each dimension is connected to the drivers of shareholder value. This degree project also provides other important insights regarding brand equity, presenting the main functions of brand equity in accordance to the literature and the empirical findings. Lastly, this degree project provides managerial implications of how to manage and develop brand equity from a holistic point of view, to successfully generate shareholder value.

Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to extend our sincerest appreciation by thanking our supervisor Dr. Galina Biedenbach. Her consistent support and guidance have been of uttermost importance, especially during these testing times. Through consistent feedback and frequent communication, we have been able to produce the best possible degree project from several different quality aspects. We would also like to thank the different opponents we had during the writing process for contributing great insights and thoughts.

Lastly, we would like to express our gratitude to our amazing interview participants; Lena Rodin at Löfbergs, Brand Manager A at Large Snacks Company, Annika Sund at Leksands Knäckebröd, Helene Moland Daly at Marabou (Mondelez International), Jenny Odéhn Hejdenberg at Santa Maria and Pelle Lundquist at A Day´s March, for contributing their knowledge and taking the time to help us with this degree project.

Umeå

May 20, 2020

Table of Contents

3.1 Definitions of brand equity ... 14

3.2 Customer-based brand equity (CBBE) ... 15

3.3 Dimensions of brand equity ... 16

3.4 Shareholder value ... 23

3.5 Brand equity in the retail industry ... 26

3.6 Conceptual model ... 27

4. Practical Method ... 31

4.1 Data collection method ... 31

4.2 Interview guide ... 33

4.3 Qualitative sampling technique and access ... 34

4.4 Conducting the interviews ... 36

4.5 Transcribing ... 37

4.6 Analysis method ... 38

4.7 Ethical considerations ... 39

5. Empirical Findings ... 40

5.1 Presentation of participants ... 40

5.2 The participants’ general perceptions of brand equity ... 41

5.4 Brand Associations ... 46

5.5 Perceived Quality ... 48

5.6 Brand Loyalty ... 53

5.7 The participants concluding thoughts on Brand Equity ... 57

6. Thematic analysis and discussion ... 60

6.1 The main functions of brand equity ... 60

6.2 Brand awareness ... 62

6.3 Brand Associations ... 67

6.4 Perceived Quality ... 71

6.5 Brand Loyalty ... 75

6.6. The revised conceptual model and final remarks ... 80

7. Conclusions ... 84

7.1 General conclusions ... 84

7.2 Theoretical contributions ... 86

7.3 Managerial implications ... 87

7.4 Societal implications ... 88

7.5 Limitations and future research ... 89

7.6 Truth criteria ... 90

References ... 93

Appendix 1: Interview guide ... 103

Appendix 2: Interview guide (Swedish version) ... 105

Appendix 3: Interview questions with corresponding theory ... 107

Appendix 4: Overview of conducted interviews ... 110

1. Introduction

This chapter will be dedicated to firstly discuss our choice of subject and provide a thorough understanding for the current problem background. Based on the problem background, we will present relevant research gaps, which will constitute the foundation for the research question and the purpose of this degree project.

1.1 Choice of subject

During the process of our university education, we have experienced a wide variety of courses stimulating different areas and topics within the roam of business administration. We both share a common interest for the discipline of marketing as well as finance. This led to a tough decision when we had to decide between the respective disciplines during the choice of master courses for year four. In the end, we chose finance and marketing respectively. We both chose our specializations at university based on genuine and a driven interest, meaning that there is a potent will and interest to thrive in these fields, primarily in regard to developing further knowledge and becoming even more enlightened. However, we both shared the experience of feeling a certain vacancy of either finance or marketing in our contrasting choice of specialization. Naturally, this degree project constituted a great opportunity to combat this situation and allowed us to combine both disciplines.

Based on the described background, we ended up in a situation where we have similar interest in both fields of marketing and finance - but having decided upon different specializations. Thus, it felt organic to investigate the relationship between marketing and finance in some capability. We both share a common interest for looking at how intangible assets generate value, since it is not traditionally an easy task. This problem constitutes one area creating potent discrepancy between marketing and finance. However, we are both strong believers that managers can not overlook the importance of intangible assets. We naturally ended up in wanting to discuss how brand equity, which is a marketing-oriented term, contributes to shareholder value, which is a finance-oriented term.

We both have a background in the retail industry from previous working experiences, and we are both aware that brand equity plays an integral role in the retail context. Competition is becoming intensive, and products more similar, meaning that the brand equity concept is becoming even more important. Therefore, the retail industry felt natural to look into, in order to create a delimitation. We believe that this degree project will provide us with a potential addition to our resumes. Since we both want to work with developing brands to reach financial success, we believe it is important to truly understand the shareholder value aspect of brand equity. This project is obviously very important for our future careers as well. We believe that the knowledge which we acquire during the process of conducting this project will be extremely valuable for firms, boardrooms and investors since it is still such a prominent trend of neglecting investments in brands, meaning that firms will potentially miss the benefits of investing in brand equity such as shareholder value.

1.2 Problem Background

In today's society, customers are being increasingly exposed to many different brands in a rapid pace. Meanwhile the market for companies is becoming saturated by an array of multinational companies (Wang et al., 2007). Derived from the current circumstances, Dahlen and Lange (2009) express the need for efficient branding strategies and activities as extremely important in order to be competitive in the market and retain the customers interest. The brand constitutes one of the most important tools in order to stay present and relevant in customers minds and creates lasting recognition, according to the swedish patent- och registreringsverket (2019, n.d.). Landelius and Treffner (1998) discuss how management at companies previously have opted to look at the stock value of the company in order to assess the value of the company. However, due to the influence which brands have on company value, managers must now more precisely understand how different aspects of a brands contributes to value and increased performance, especially in terms of understanding the customers (Landelius & Treffner, 1998)

Brands are traditionally considered and reviewed as corporate intangible assets (Doyle, 2001). Brands are also considered to constitute and possess value both economically as well as they create wealth and value for the company’s shareholders (Aaker, 1996; Kerin & Sethuraman, 1998). The importance and relevance of managing brands in a business administration context is indisputable. Aaker (1996) continues to accentuate how the brand is a strategic asset for long-term performance of the firm, and therefore has to be managed and developed accordingly. According to Doyle (2001), several big and renowned companies such as Procter and Gamble have severely simplified how brands contribute value to the actual performance of a business, and instead chosen to solely focus on the value proposition for customers. Furthermore, Doyle (2008) suggests that over 75% of the value of some established companies consists of the brand and other intangible assets from marketing, making investments in branding activities fundamental for firms. Kerin and Sethuraman (1998) discuss how there is an established understanding in both the marketing and finance field that well-known brands indeed do constitute economic value, but the process of assigning actual financial value is however a completely different challenge. The need to further facilitate how brands contribute to financial performance is therefore evident. The assets and liabilities linked to a brand are known as brand equity (Aaker, 1991). Brand equity is a term which in many ways has borrowed equity from the finance literature, since brand equity is a concept with an ambition and purpose to encapsulate and capture the value of brands in relation to firm performance as well as examining dimensions which contribute to this (Rust et al., 2004). The main objective is to understand the customer in order for the firm to deliver value to the customer, and in return being able to reap benefits such as increased margins and profitability stemming from satisfied customers, who give value back (Aaker, 1991). Brand equity is an approach for marketers to truly facilitate and manifest the relationship between marketing investments and results (Farquhar, 1989). The most commonly used model for explaining what constitute brand equity is Aaker’s (1991) five dimensions of brand equity: brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty and other proprietary assets. There are however many different interpretations and definitions of what brand equity constitutes - and not one specific and widely accepted definition (Keller, 2008). Washburn and Plank (2002) add to this ambiguity by stating that there is no defined measurement to be used for brand equity either.

However, the consensus in the research field of brand equity is that brand equity brings value to products through the customers associations and interpretations regarding a specific brand - created through different marketing efforts (Keller, 2008).

The Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman once ferociously argued in a 1970, and now extremely famous Times article - that operating businesses only has one sole purpose. The objective with businesses is to generate and maximize profit for shareholders. Friedman further stated that companies which do not adopt this “responsible” attitude would be faced with binding constraint and not remain competitive (Forbes, 2013; Green Biz, 2006). This outlook on operating businesses is heavily reflected in today's society. Managers allocate scarce resources through the different departments of the firm to create value for the shareholders, and investment decisions are typically based on concrete assumptions and calculations with a clear link to creating shareholder value (Srivastava et al., 1998). Gajland and Treffner (2001) add to this discussion by addressing how many companies are focused on developing a more cost-efficient organization and have become more resource aware due to the growing competitiveness of almost every market. This means that every department of the firm is held accountable for their attribution to the company and what they bring to the table. According to Aaker and Jacobson (1994), investments directed into intangible assets are scrutinized and looked down upon since they traditionally are harder to measure and quantify. Due to investments in intangible assets becoming more overridden, Stein (1989) states that managers are becoming increasingly more prone to sacrifice these kinds of investments in order to not diminish and jeopardize current or future term-results. Gajland and Treffner (2001) regard that already existing capital in companies will be invested in areas which are easy to derive results from and are to be regarded as risk balanced.

The reluctance of investing in intangible assets such as brand equity ties into a common challenge for marketing managers. Rinivasan and Hanssens (2009) mean that the contribution from marketing is generally not readily visible and concrete. There are several challenges regarding the process of presenting for example quarterly changes in earnings and sales based on the impact from marketing actions. Translating marketing into financial success is heavily centred around interpreting the positive and intangible assets marketing brings to the firm. Especially soft, intangible assets and metrics such as brand building, brand equity and market-sensing capability (Rinivasan & Hanssens, 2009). Top management teams and boards are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that their companies are investing extensive amounts of money into marketing actions which are not necessarily based on analytics and knowledge (Hanssens & Pauwels, 2016). The problems of not being able to derive results from marketing investments present a challenge for marketing departments to demonstrate their addition as a value-creating asset in financial terms and has further led to a decrease of marketer’s credibility (Rust et al. 2004). This view might not be representative of how shareholder value actually is created though, as some researchers propose that the source of economic value and competitive ability nowadays is essentially tied to the creation and manipulation of intangible assets (Cañibano et al 2000; Lusch & Harvey, 1994).

The implication of a loss of credibility in the marketing discipline and a loss of power of marketing managers in boardrooms will therefore inevitably lead to firms missing out of potential investment opportunities consisting of intangible factors, such as the benefits from brand equity. There is potent evidence of how brands, and specifically brand equity, contribute to the shareholder value of firms (Cañibano et al 2000; Lusch & Harvey 1994; Srivastava et al., 1998; Knowles, 2003). Farquhar (1989) mentions how the incremental cash flow increases when a product is positively associated with a brand, and Pahud De Mortanges and van Riel (2003) state in their research that the performance of a brand also leads to a significantly higher financial performance of a firm. The positive relationship between an increased financial performance as a cause of a well-managed brand therefore

has empirical evidence. However, both Srivastava et al. (1998) and Knowles (2003) point out that the proven positive effects that brand equity has on a firm's competitive advantage needs to be expressed in terms of shareholder value to gain further credibility and legitimacy in the corporate strategy of firms. A potent consequence of firms not investing in brand equity due to lack of understanding how different parts of it contributes to shareholder value, could therefore lead to firms missing out of potential profit from brand activities.

A basic definition of shareholder value is that the value of a firm increases when managers make decisions that increase the net present value of future cash flows (Lukas et al., 2005, p. 415). Shareholder value might therefore serve as a sufficient general measurement of a firm’s financial performance and is an adequate indicator of value created. Furthermore, there is no general consensus in the literature about what constitutes financial performance (Cochran & Wood, 1984), but shareholder value in its definition also contains factors such as sales, earnings and profitability which are factors that brand equity has a large influence on, based on previous research. Based on our experience, sales and profitability etc. are key areas when discussing the success of marketing actions. Brands are as mentioned regarded as intangible assets (Doyle, 2001). Following the nature of brands, Landelius and Treffner (1998) argue that understanding how and why brands contribute to shareholder value, and the process of translating brands to shareholder value is traditionally hard. This means that there is an evident need for managers to understand how brand creates shareholder value and how they can adopt different strategies to further this value creation. Landelius and Treffner (1998) continue to add to this by stating that the company which generates the highest rate of shareholder value will have the easiest way of attracting money, which can translate into new investments. In other words, companies which creates shareholder value through their brands will be able to obtain success both in the short term, as well as create a foundation for further success.

Kotler and Levy (1969) acknowledge and discuss that different marketing activities and actions should indeed be applied to all kinds of businesses and industries. Marketing plays an influential role in the success of the business in the retail industry (Gilbert, 1999). Gilbert (1999, p. 6) defines retail as “any business that directs its marketing efforts towards

satisfying the final customer based upon the organization of selling goods and services as means of distribution”. Another aspect which accentuates the role of brand equity in

retailing is the fact that the progress of selling and buying products has become a brand-dominated activity (Gilbert, 1999). Companies and products are becoming more similar and this situation has led to an increased focus on establishing and maintaining strong brands in order to obtain sales, thus the brand is an influential factor in a company's potential success (Argonova, n.d.). The process of retailing compromises the vast majority of the activities which conduct marketing as a concept (Gilbert, 1999). It is therefore essential to discuss the linkage between brand equity activities and shareholder value in the retailing industry.

Svenska Näringsgrensindelning (SNI) has created several different ramifications for what types of companies can be fractionated into different industries. According to Allabolag (n.d.), these are some examples of company-ramifications inside the retail industry; clothing store, department stores and supermarket shopping, grocery stores, opticians and pharmacy trade (Allabolag, n.d). According to Woodside and Walser (2007), the concept of brands refers the retail industry in many ways. Having a strong brand contributes to the relative power of attracting customers to a certain brand over a competing one (Woodside & Walser, 2007). The retailing industry is an integral part of the economic structure in the society - and is also responsible for in many ways shaping our way of life.

The activity of trading goods has always been a central activity in traditional societies (Gilbert, 1999). During the year of 2017, the retailing industry in Sweden employed more than 270 000 people (Handelsrådet, 2019). This problem background facilitates the importance of having strong brand equity and the existing, but not sufficiently investigated, relationship between brand equity and shareholder value. Traditionally, companies have recognized that strong brands and extensive brand equity indeed contribute to succeeding businesses - but not specifically how to actually manage and develop brand equity, thus leaving the concept seemingly even more intangible. Brands are intangible assets, which in line with the discipline of marketing means that the contribution is hard to measure and quantify. This further means that it is of utter importance to develop an extensive understanding of how to manage and develop intangible assets, in order to compensate for the lacking possibilities of conducting accurate measurements.

With this degree project, we will conduct in-depth interviews with managers responsible for brand activities within well-established firms in the Swedish retail industry. Through these interviews we will collect practical examples of how and why brand equity is created, as well as develop a deeper understanding of how certain dimensions of brand equity contribute to shareholder value. We hope to develop practical suggestions for firms which currently discard brand equity investments due to intangibility, who also miss out on benefits such as increased shareholder value. Thus, manifesting why they must allocate money for brand equity investments in the future. This is especially significant in a market such the retail industry where brands are so influential and can therefore not be overseen. Furthermore, creating an understanding of the impact brand equity has on shareholder value could further legitimize marketing investments in general and increase the credibility of marketing departments in the boardroom.

1.3 Research gap

The importance of brands and the role of brand equity has been discussed from many perspectives and previous literature (Cañibano et al 2000; Lusch & Harvey 1994; Srivastava et al., 1998; Knowles, 2003). Based on our literature review (Cañibano et al 2000; Lusch & Harvey 1994; Srivastava et al., 1998; Knowles, 2003), we can determine that previous research recognizes several benefits of working with brands and managing brand equity. However, plenty of studies discuss how investments in brands are becoming more seldom due to the problems associated with measuring intangible assets, and companies instead opt for concrete investments in line with the profit maximizing nature of firms (Stein, 1989; Gajland and Treffner, 2001) Research has also express the need for further research in the context of how brand equity contribute to financial performance, and how to manage and develop brand equity accordingly (Pahud De Mortanges & Van riel, 2003). The problem background has also established the importance of implementing the impact of shareholder value in all investments for the current and future success of firms (Landelius and Treffner, 1998; Srivastava et al., 1998; Knowles, 2003). Even though Shareholder value is highly relevant in the context of brands and brand equity, there is scarce research conducted for describing, and providing practical examples of the relationship between them. Barker and Milano (2018) express the need to develop an “evidence-based” framework with the primary function of explaining and deriving how intangible aspects of marketing investments such as brand equity contribute to the bottom line of the of the company, with practical examples. Davcik et al. (2015) state that there is no doubt that brands play an integral role in marketing and that it has an outspoken relationship with the firm’s created share. Davcik et al. (2015) specifically highlight in their article the need of investigating the perspective of shareholder value and financial performance for making a unified and more

complete theory of brand equity, and that continued research regarding brand equity is needed - with approaches primarily targeting the financial-based spectra.

There is no distinct way of defining financial performance. Cochran and Wood (1984) state that there is no outspoken consensus in the research sphere when defining which financial indicators should be used when defining financial performance. Based on this argumentation we believe shareholder value is an adequate alternative to financial performance to discuss the relationship of brand equity with. This is further supported in the context of brand equity, Pahud De Mortanges and van Riel (2003) accentuate the relationship between financial performance and brands, and ultimately shareholder value. To help fill the research gap regarding brand equity and shareholder value, we aim to obtain important insights from practical examples which will also enrich the general understanding for how to manage and develop brand equity, and how successfully managed brand equity, contribute to the financial performance of the company. Therefore, we find both Davcik et al. (2015) and Barker and Milano (2018) as important inspirations for future research in this field, which we hope to contribute to. Another aspect of brand equity which need further research according to Davcik et al. (2015) is the lack of practical knowledge and solutions for practitioners working with managing and developing brands at companies. Based on the background, Davcik et al. (2015) promotes the need for researchers across different industry contexts to describe and explain how brands actually are managed and developed in order to create brand equity.

Christodoulides et al. (2015) argue that researchers must establish a nomological network of the different dimensions of brand equity. Further on, Christodoulides et al. (2015) mean that researchers and scholars must create a better understanding for the actual composition and management of brand equity in different context, industries or product categories. This is further supported by Pahud De Mortanges and Van riel (2003) that emphasize the need to examine the relationship between brand equity and shareholder value in various industry sectors. There is some research made in the area of how brand equity affects shareholder value, and that examines the relationship between them. For instance, Pahud de Mortanges and Van Riel (2003) provide insight on how brand equity affects shareholder value using the brand asset valuation model, finding a positive relationship between the instances. Hsu et al. (2013) conclude that stock performance is highly related to the brand value of companies, and Madden et al. (2006) found that portfolios of strong brands significantly outperforms weaker brands in economic performance, creating shareholder value primarily by yielding returns greater than the relevant market benchmark. The direct and positive relationship that brand equity and brand building have on shareholder value of companies is therefore partly established, but there are questions as to how the different dimensions of brand equity create value. The contribution to the research area from e.g Pahud De Mortanges and van Riel (2003), Hsu et al. (2013) and Madden et al. (2006), mainly consist of quantitative studies with statistical verification of the positive relationship between branding activities and financial performance. However, we find that the previous literature lack explanations as to how and why underlying dimensions of brand equity affects shareholder value. Our degree project seeks to, through a qualitative approach, provide a deeper understanding of how brand equity is managed and developed through efficient actions and activities, and how the dimensions of brand equity generate shareholder value. Considering our empirical setting, there is no surprise that there are several articles discussing brand equity in the context of retail. Pappu et al. (2005) and Swoboda et al. (2016) have for instance investigated brand equity in the context of retail. However, none of these articles adopted a qualitative approach, meaning that they do not provide any deeper explanations, which was a further research approach requested by Davcik et al. (2015).

value with a qualitative approach is scarce, meaning our degree project contributes to the need for deeper explanations of how to manage and develop brand equity, examining brand equity in a specific industry and connecting brand equity to a financial indicator.

Based on the problem background and the research gap we have established that brands are highly important for the success of the company - where brand equity constitute a potent and successful tool for developing and working with the brand, while brand equity is an outspoken highly important factor for success.

1.4 Research question

Based on the problem background and the research gap - we have established the following research question:

"How do firms manage and develop their brand equity in order to generate shareholder value in the Swedish retail industry?"

1.5 Purpose

The purpose of this degree project is to develop a deeper understanding of how companies manage and develop their brand equity and how brand equity influences shareholder value in the Swedish retail industry. Through providing concrete examples of actions and activities of how to manage brand equity, grounded in both theories and empirical data, we will concretize the workflow for managing and developing brand equity. This has previoulsy been a large challenge due to the intangibility of brand equity. Furthermore, we aim to legitimize investments in brand equity through providing examples of how the dimensions of brand equity contribute to the drivers of shareholder value. It is readily established that in order for investments to be accepted in a business context, they have to be clearly connected to financial performance. Through answering our research question, we will provide a practical and evidence-based framework derived from in-depth interviews. These in-depth interviews will be held with managers responsible for working strategically with brand related questions at well established brands in the Swedish retail industry. With this degree project, we aim to polarize the debate and problematic situation where companies currently choose to discard and overlook investments into brand equity - thus missing out of benefits in terms of increased shareholder value.

We recognize that companies are in many ways run with the purpose of being profit maximizing. Since brand equity investments are regarded as difficult to measure properly, they do not fit the nature of profit maximizing businesses, where return on investment need to be readily visible. However, brand equity is, according to our problem background, clearly a foundation for increased shareholder value and financial well-being. We believe that managers just need to understand how brand equity is continuously developed and managed, and how brand equity contribute to shareholder value. In order for brand equity investments to win legitimacy in boardrooms, there must firstly be a clear workflow of how to efficiently manage and develop brand equity. Secondly, practical evidence of the relationship between brand equity and shareholder value is needed. We will develop a conceptual model, illustrating practical examples of actions and activities for the management and development of brand equity, as well as presenting how each dimension of brand equity contribute to drivers of shareholder value.

2. Scientific method

In this chapter, the philosophical stances, the research approach and the research design of this degree project will be presented. Further on, our preunderstandings will be introduced and explained. To conclude this chapter, we will provide an explanation as to how the literature search of this degree project was conducted.

2.1 Ontology

Ontology is the knowledge of how the nature of reality is perceived with a central theme being in what different matters social entities can be viewed as (Saunders et al., 2012). Social entities can be viewed as objective entities meaning that they exist independently from social actors, or as subjective entities that gets affected and constructed by the social actors within them (Bryman & Bell, 2011). These stances are objectivism and constructionism (also called subjectivism) and are particularly popular and often used within research of business and management (Saunders et al., 2012). Bryman and Bell (2011) mean that an objective stance on organizations would imply that management is an objective entity of which the employees have little influence on, with highly structured hierarchy and clear job descriptions and duties of the people within the organization. This view would also claim that all organizations have similar structure and the functionalities are the same at the essence of the company. A subjective stance on organizations on the other hand would mean that managers to a larger scale have impact on an individual level and that their beliefs and meanings are attached to the company (Saunders et al., 2012). Subjectivism would also suggest that the culture of the organization is not pre-given but continuously affected and changed by the social actors within them (Bryman & Bell, 2015). This degree projects aims to investigate how well-established brands within the retail industry manage and develop their brand equity through actions and activities in order to create shareholder value. Every brand faces different challenges and operate under different circumstances and conditions. We believe that the development and management of brand equity is shaped by the people working at the brand, and that the customers perception of the brand also is a contributing factor. This degree project therefore mainly adopts a subjective, or in other words constructivist ontological stance. Since we study how established brands develop and manage their brand equity actions and initiatives in order to generate shareholder value, we adopt a subjective ontological stance due to the fact that this degree project has a qualitative approach. The subjective stance supports our prominent desire to explore and map how these actions and activities are managed and developed by managers and other individuals at these brands. We believe that depending on these managers background, experiences as well as the organizational situation, actions and activities will be different. If there were no social actors such as managers at the brands, it would be difficult to provide practical examples and concretize how brand equity is managed and developed at brands through suitable actions and activities. We believe that the subjective stance is best suited for our degree project, since an objective perspective does not approach any types of social entities as something which can be manipulated or changed by the behaviours and actions of individuals. However, we therefore argue that the different challenges and conditions at companies alongside different managers responsible for brand equity, makes a subjective approach most suitable for this degree project.

2.2 Epistemology

According to Bryman and Bell (2015), the epistemological consideration and stance primarily concerns what is, or what should be regarded as adequate and acceptable knowledge within a discipline. One of the most central considerations and issues within the epistemology stance is the question of whether the social world can or should be viewed or studied from the same foundational principles, perspectives and procedures as natural science (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The Epistemological stance deals with knowledge, and whether knowledge is objective or if researchers can interpret knowledge in their own subjective way. Two of the main epistemological perspectives are positivism and interpretivism (Saunders et al., 2012). Positivism is an epistemological perspective, the doctrine of positivism is in many ways extremely hard and difficult to explain and outline precisely due to many researchers adopt this perspective in many different ways (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Saunders et al. (2012) argue that researchers who adopt the philosophy of positivism are probably implementing the same philosophical stance as the natural scientist. Focus is on retrieving and collecting data from an observable reality with focus on regularities and casual relationships (Saunders et al., 2012). Positivism advocates implementation and application of different methods within the natural science - to the study and concept of social reality (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Interpretivism is another perspective which contrasts positivism. Researcher who adopt interpretivism share a common view that people within social science and their institutions are widely and frankly fundamentally different from natural science researchers (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Interpretivism was developed as a result based on the perceived flaws and inadequacy of positivism - in order to fulfil the needs of social scientists (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Interpretivism put emphasis and advocates how it is a necessity for researchers to understand and interpret the differences between humans in our role as so called social actors - and that there is a strong need to acknowledge these differences when conducting research about people rather than objects (Saunders et al., 2012). Further on Saunders et al. (2012) mean that researchers must adopt an empathic stance, understand research objects and understand how they interpret the world from their point of view. Meaning that researchers adopting the interpretivist stance must study people and their behaviour (Saunders et al., 2012; Bryman & Bell, 2015).

This degree project adopts an interpretivist stance, since we aim to gain a better understanding regarding how well-established brands develop and manage brand equity to generate shareholder value. Furthermore, we aim to provide concrete examples of how managers adapt actions and activities at their respective brands. Since social actors, in this case in terms of marketing and brand managers, cannot be separated from the actions of the brand regarding brand equity, we believe that the interpretivist approach is best suited for this degree project. We will analyse and interpret the collected data with the approach and mindset that the interviewees and highly influence the management of brand equity, and ultimately how it influences shareholder value. We believe that it is important to study and approach different companies and brands since every brand consists of individuals which influence and contribute to a non-standardized meaning. Brands are highly dependent on perceptions and opinions of both customers and employees, and our study relies on these subjective opinions, making positivism not suitable for our degree project.

2.3 Research approach

The main objective of the research approach is to define the relationship between the actual research and the theory in a study (Bryman & Bell, 2015, p. 28). There are two main approaches for constructing a research design, deductive research and inductive research. With a deductive approach a hypothesis is developed from existing theory and research, and a research design is constructed with the aim to test the hypothesis in the context of reality (Collis & Hussey, 2014). The deductive approach possesses a wide variety of important and influential characteristics, whereas one is the search of trying to map and explain the relationship between concepts and variables (Saunders et al., 2012). Another important characteristic of deduction which should be acknowledged, is the need for concepts to be operationalised in a manner which enables researchers to measure facts. Blaikie (2010) describes six steps which a traditional deductive approach will follow and progress through: (1) creating a hypothesis or tentative idea to form a theory, (2) using existing literature to deduce and assume a testable proposition, (3) examine the premises and logic which created the hypothesis and compare them to existing theories, continue the process if there is an advance in understanding after comparing, (4) test the premise or hypothesis by collecting efficient data analyse it, (5) If the test fails, the hypothesis is false and must be either rejected or modified (6) If the hypothesis is consistent with theory, then the hypothesis is corroborated.

An alternative approach to the deductive, is the inductive approach. Inductive research can be seen as the opposite of deductive. It starts with individual observations from which general patterns and ideas are formed, and research questions may then be used to narrow the scope of the study (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Theory is in other words developed from the observation of empirical reality - general inferences can thus be deduced from particular instances (Collis & Hussey, 2014). The purpose of starting off from individual observations instead of existing theory is to attain a feeling of the context, to better understand the nature and origin of a problem or a situation. Following observations and interviews etc, the researcher might arrive at the same theory as the researcher following the deductive approach, the theory would however follow data rather than than vice versa in opposite situation as of with the deductive approach (Saunders et al., 2012). Saunders et al. (2012) mean that followers of induction would criticize the deductive approach since the approach advocates the construct of a rigid methodology - which do not allow any alternative explanations for a situation or context. Except from the two main approaches, deduction and induction, there is also another approach, abduction, which is a merger between deduction and induction. Adopting a abduction based approach requires obtaining rich data enough to allow for exploring a phenomenon through identification of themes and patterns etc. in order to establish a hypothesis like within the inductive approach (Saunders et al, 2012). The researcher would then proceed to integrate these explanations to an overall framework, and thereby establishing a theory about the specific phenomenon. This would later be tested by using evidence found in existing and new data, and then revise if necessary, a process reminiscing and in accordance with the deductive approach. This creates a process which can be compared to going back and forth from inductive to deductive approaches (Saunders et al., 2012).

This degree project is based upon existing and established marketing theories with the goal to explore different contexts and contribute to this theory. We aim to produce a result that legitimizes and concretizes existing literature in the specific context of the retail industry, and the research therefore uses a deductive approach.

An inductive approach would not be suitable since the theoretical framework is built on a clear foundation of existing theories and previous research makes such a central aspect of

the purpose and research question of the study. The theoretical framework has furthermore inspired both the data collection and the analysis of the data, making up the main themes for the study in the concluding phases of the degree project. There are however parts and elements of the study that consist of an inductive nature, as we wish to discover new factors of developing and managing brand equity, as well as exploring the interrelationships between the dimensions of brand equity and the influence short- and long-term factors of shareholder value.

2.4 Research design

The research design is the general plan of what strategy and in what approach the research questions of the thesis will be answered (Saunders et al., 2012). When deciding the direction of a study, the first methodological choice that has to be made is that of using a qualitative, quantitative or a mixed method study. This choice will imply a certain set of elements of which the study is expected to include to keep a consistency throughout the research (Saunders et al., 2012). Qualitative research emphasizes words rather than numbers in their presentation of analysis and takes in the perspective of the subjects being studied with a close distance to understand the reality from their point of view (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Qualitative research seeks to understand specific behaviour and beliefs of the subject being studies rather than creating generalizable findings that could be used in different contexts and is relatively unstructured in its approach (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Furthermore, Saunders et al (2012) state that qualitative research aims to develop a conceptual framework using a variation of techniques in both data collection and analysis, and emphasizes the importance of gaining close access to the participants - and handling the data gained from the access with sensitivity (Saunders et al., 2012).

Quantitative research generally seeks to find generalizations and common occurrences by studying large amounts of data and applying that knowledge to different contexts (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Saunders et al., 2012). The involvement between the researcher and the research subjects is very limited and in some cases none at all, meaning that there is no deep interaction with each subject investigated (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The research is highly structured and designed to examine the relevant concepts in the focus of the study and without getting off topic, and the data collected is usually consisting of numbers (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Quantitative research examines the relationships between the different variables in focus, typically measured by statistical approaches. Since the researcher is independent from the subjects being researched due to limited involvement with the respondents, it is critical that the questions are clearly stated and understood in the same way. For the same reason it is important that data is collected in the same manner (Saunders et al., 2012). In other words, a general and easy way to distinguish qualitative methods from quantitative is in which ways and to what extent numeric and non-numeric data are used in the research, where numeric data is more associated to quantitative research and non-numeric data to qualitative research. This distinction is often shown whether the thesis primarily uses a questionnaire or interviews for their data collection, although combinations are not unusual especially within business and management research (Saunders et al., 2012). This degree project adopts a qualitative research design since the purpose is to gain a deeper understanding for how brand equity is managed and developed at well established brands and how it generates shareholder value. Through in-depth interviews with suitable individuals such as brand and marketing managers, we aim to develop a deeper understanding for our research topic and collect primary data in order to answer our research question of this degree project. As previously discussed, we have chosen to adopt an interpretivist stance, which is another argument for choosing the qualitative approach. We believe that it is of great interest to get close enough to study the meanings and thoughts of

the interviewees since they will provide vital insights for our research. A qualitative research design is therefore suitable since it enables us to conduct in-depth interviews. Through the interviews we gain deeper knowledge of our research topic, enabling us to provide concretized examples of how brand equity is managed and developed through suitable actions and activities. Furthermore, practical examples are presented for how actions and initiatives managing brand equity contribute to shareholder value, and thus enables us to legitimize brand equity investments by connecting brand equity investments to financial parameters.

2.5 Preunderstandings

Humans are never able to experience the world, read literature or encounter and react to situations without the influence of pre-understandings (Gilje et al., 2007). According to Coghlan (2011), researcher’s pre-understandings can also refer to specific settings, where pre-understandings allude to the researchers existing insights, knowledge and experiences. These pre-understandings have been obtained through experiencing their own organization and therefore now the environment. Thus, meaning that they already know specific languages, jargons and history - as well as having an established contact network in the organization. Gilje et al. (2007) mean that our pre-understandings lead individuals to interpret situations and information differently, and ultimately is necessary for individuals to make sense of them of their environment. We both have thorough and rigid background in the field of marketing and with brands, both through education, as well as through different occupations related to these areas. We also have extensive experience in the retail industry.

Based upon our background in the retail industry, it was evident how important the brand is in the retail environment due to the heavily competitive circumstances with more generic and similar brands. Gilje et al. (2007) accentuate that personal experiences are extremely influential on an individual's preunderstandings and will affect how and why we interpret things differently. Even though this degree project is not written on commission for a specific organization, our multifaceted backgrounds allow us to have good understanding regarding the importance of brand equity, both from the perceptions of customers and employees. These pre-understandings have helped us to easily interpret scientific articles and literature written in this field since we have first-hand experience with large contents of the research.

We felt a potent need to investigate brand equity, how it is managed and how it contributes to shareholder value - in line with our problem background. Bryman and Bell (2015) mean that pre-understandings in many ways also can refer to previous experiences and information from a specific brand or organization which they aim to investigate. As previously stated, this degree project is not written on commission, but we believe this mindset can still be adopted in the sense of industry. We therefore believe that our experience in the retail industry is integral in order to interpret information and interviews efficiently and enables us to see things from their perspective.

2.6 Literature search

According to Bryman and Bell (2015), the literature review is a crucial part of undergraduate essays and the literature search is an important task throughout the research project and provides the basis of the research. Furthermore, Saunders et al. (2012) add that the purpose should be to collect and review the most relevant research for the chosen

The main purpose of the literature search is to assemble a large quantity of relevant literature and obtain the consisting knowledge of the pre-existing research available (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Rigorously reviewing the existing literature in the research subject helped us grasp what had been explored by previous researchers and what areas that needed further attention and context. Using keywords is also a common and effective way to find sources relevant to the specific research area (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Collis & Hussey, 2014). These approaches ultimately helped us find the most urgent research gap in the subject. Adding to this, some researchers specifically point out which areas and contexts in the research subject that needs further research, which was also taken into consideration.

In this degree project, the theoretical framework is built upon a large amount of previous research mainly found in books and research articles related to relevant subjects and keywords of our research question. Some examples of the keywords used in the literature search of this degree project are; brand equity, customer-based brand equity, brand equity

dimensions, retail brand equity, shareholder value, shareholder value drivers. In our

literature search we have primarily used Google Scholar and databases provided by Umeå University Library. Bryman & Bell (2015) claim that an effective way of finding information is to cover the reference lists of previous research. This has been another fundamental approach to find literature in this degree project. The research topic in general has been widely covered for decades which has made some researchers, and their references, extra relevant and has laid a foundation for the purpose of our study. We have continuously through the research project tried to avoid secondary referencing and find the primary source of the literature to the greatest extent possible. It has also been our priority to exclusively use peer reviewed and well cited articles and books relevant to the research subject.

3. Theoretical framework

In the third chapter, we will present a theoretical framework. Our main intention is to provide and generate a general foundation of understanding for crucial concepts in order facilitate the management of the empirical findings as well as the forthcoming analysis. In the end of this chapter, we will present a conceptual model with the intent of summarizing the framework in order to be used for conducting in-depth interviews, as well as provide a foundation for an overall analysis.

3.1 Definitions of brand equity

As briefly discussed, in the previous research, there is no true consensus regarding how to define brand equity or how to measure brand equity, and there are several different definitions frequently used across the literature (Keller, 2008; Washburn & Plank, 2002). The literature on brand equity is in many ways substantial, but also largely fragmented and indecisive, or as Berthon et al. (2001, p. 1) describe it “perhaps the only thing that has not

been reached with regard to brand equity is a conclusion”. The brand equity concept is

thought to be introduced somewhere in the early 1980s (Barwise, 1993; Feldwick, 1996). The majority of the early definitions of brand equity as a term were based or took inspiration from Farquhar's (1989, p. 24) definition of brand equity as “the value endowed by the brand

to the product”. Keller (2003) describes the value of brand equity as a function for bridging

the activities put into a brand in the past and what the brand will constitute in the future. This definition ties in very well with Ambler’s (2003) characterization and definition of brand equity as a retainer for future earnings, profits and cash flows which have resulted from previous marketing investments. Brand equity has evolved into a key marketing asset (Ambler, 2003). Understanding and interpreting the different dimensions of brand equity is essential. The understanding will enable the process of allocating and investing necessary means in order to grow the intangible asset of brand equity. Growing brand equity as an asset generates competitive advantage and barriers, as well as create brand wealth (Yoo et al., 2000). Reynolds and Phillips (2005) describes brand equity as a way to understand the holistic impact of marketing. Since the definition of brand equity has been inconsistent, Asamoah (2014) argues that researcher must work with brand equity based on the definition which is suitable and important for the project.

According to the literature, it is possible look at brand equity from two main perspectives (Kapferer, 2008), either from the firm's, or the customer’s point of view - which is in line with Aakers (1991, p. 15) definition of brand equity as “a set of assets and liabilities linked

to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firms customers”. According to Pappu et al. (2005)

there is empirical evidence supporting the fact that brand equity indeed is multifaceted and has several dimensions, of which you can choose to review brand equity from. Based on this introduction to the term brand equity and Asamoah’s (2014) argumentation, we believe that it will be beneficial for us to base our theoretical background on the customer based brand equity (CBBE), which focus on the value based on customers perceptions, feelings, associations etc about a certain brand. We believe that it is vital to understand the customer-based brand equity dimension for managers. The customers are vital for increased shareholder value since they are buying the products, especially in the retail industry where

Having a strong brand and extensive brand equity is therefore extremely important in the context of customers, and subsequently achieve shareholder value, we argue. Wood (2000) contributes to this discussion by stating that estimating financial value for the actual brand of the firm is of value and useful - however, it does not help marketing managers understand the actual process of creating and building brand equity. Wood (2000) continues by stating that instead focusing on the more marketing based CBBE, marketing managers will better understand how their brand is received in the minds of their customers, and thus can be able to design efficient marketing programs to increase sales. This degree project has a marketing approach, and according to Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998) the CBBE approach is mainly a marketing focused assessment to brand equity which focus on creating value for both customers and the firm.

3.2 Customer-based brand equity (CBBE)

The concept and evolution of customer-based brand equity is heavily influenced by cognitive psychology, more precisely focusing on memory structure (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). The CBBE-approach is the dominant perspective in the brand equity theory and is preferred by the majority of practitioners and academics in marketing research. Mainly due to the fact that if a brand has no meaning or value to the actual customer - it is meaningless for investors, manufacturers, customers or retailers (Cobb-Wahlgren et al., 1995). In the research field for CBBE, two of the most influential contributors for concepts are made by Kevin Lane Keller (1993) and David Aaker (1991). Both Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) refer to brand equity as customer-based brand equity in general, hence we believe that the CBBE approach is the most central approach to use in the context of brand equity as a whole. Keller and Lehman (2006, p. 14) state that brand equity is based on the customers attitudes about the appreciated attributes of the brand, and more precisely that brand equity “is derived from the words and actions of customers”. Keller (1993) further states that the strength of a brand and its brand equity is based on the knowledge of the brand amongst customers in relation to the firm's marketing efforts. Keller (1993) continues by explaining that the obvious goal with the majority of marketing efforts is to increase sales numbers and ultimately enhance shareholder value. However, in order to succeed with this, the customer must be aware of the brand and have positive associations. Many firms develop their marketing strategies with a main goal being to improve their sales, where the ultimate goal for many firms is to create a brand, which is strong enough to differentiate the firm from other competitors and act as a sustainable competitive advantage (Jung & Sung, 2008). The customer-based brand equity perspective is efficient and effective according to Keller (1993), since the approach acts and functions as a guiding tool within the roam of creating strategic marketing efforts. Strategic marketing efforts enables for more effective decision-making for managers (Keller, 1993). Szöcs (2012) adds to this by stating that CBBE is often talked about in the literature as decision support and a useful tool for managers regarding diagnosis about the customers thoughts about the brand.

In order to utilize this approach to the best possible extent, Keller (1993) means that the firm has to create accurate enough marketing activities for the brand in order to translate how for instance increased brand awareness leads to sales. Secondly, Keller (1993) states that market managers must realize that long-term success for a brand, is heavily influenced by the brand awareness currently existing in the minds of customers. Positive brand associations and positive perceptions towards a firm's brand will most probably generate increased profits through the firm's ability to command higher prices and sales, as well as achieving lower costs (Keller, 1993).

3.3 Dimensions of brand equity

Since our degree project aims to investigate how firms in the Swedish retail industry manage and develop brand equity, and how brand equity generates shareholder value, we must firstly find a relevant framework or model, describing and highlighting the different dimensions which constitute and compose CBBE, or just brand equity as we will refer to it, since that is what CBBE is. According to Farjam and Hongyi (2015), David Aaker's conceptual model from 1991 provide the most comprehensive equity model by reviewing five dimensions which constitute the basis of value creation for CBBE. As stated previously, Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) are two of the most influential researchers in the field of brand equity. Our literature review demonstrates that Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) are frequently mentioned and cited, therefore we believe David Aaker's framework is applicable and relevant to use. However, we must consider empirical evidence provided by other researchers and scholars in order to truly support and facilitate the functions of the different dimensions of brand equity. Aaker (1991) conceptualize his model by stating that the different intangible assets together constitute the brand equity of the firm. If these intangible assets are managed carefully and well, then these intangible assets can be turned into value for the products, the customers as well as the firm, as discussed previously.

The five dimensions of Aaker's (1991) conceptual framework are; brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty and other proprietary brand assets. These five assets presented in the model is according to Aaker (1991) the foundation for what constitutes brand equity. As previously mentioned, Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) both relate to brand equity in terms of customer-based brand equity, therefore we will use the term brand equity since two of the most influential researchers in the field equates CBBE and brand equity. The importance of Aaker's (1991) five dimensions in brand equity theory is undoubtful. Pride and Ferrell (2003, p. 299) even define brand equity as “the marketing

and financial values linked with a brands strength in the market, including actual proprietary brand assets, brand name awareness, brand loyalty, perceived brand quality and brand associations”. Further on, Aaker (1991) describes how his framework of

dimensions for brand equity has two primary functions. Firstly, to add value or to subtract value for the customers. Secondly, through adding value to the customers, the firm also has potential to obtain value for the firm through generating cash flow which can be done in many different ways (Aaker, 1991). Even though there are not necessarily any deeper explanations as to how each dimension of brand equity are connected to shareholder value, Aaker (1991) have presented a number of ways which the five presented dimensions together as a cohesive brand equity function, can contribute to enhanced cash flow;

1. Brand equity can contribute to enhanced programs to attract new customers or recapture old ones easier.

2. Brand equity can contribute to enhanced brand loyalty - leading to increased repeat-purchase behaviour.

3. Brand equity usually allow for higher margins through enabling price premiums. 4. Brand equity can enable and provide a platform for future growth.

5. Brand equity can provide different types of benefits when leveraging distribution channels.

6. Brand equity can provide a competitive advantage through developing barriers for new entrants on the market.

3.3.1 Brand awareness

Brand awareness can be described as to what degree customers can recognize and identify a specific brand under certain circumstances (Aaker, 1996). Keller (2008) defines brand awareness as “related to the strength of the resulting node or trace in memory, as reflected

by customers’ ability to identify the brand under different conditions”. Furthermore, brand

awareness can also relate to the very simple notion of whether the customer know about the brand or not (Keller, 2008). Hutter et al. (2013) argue that brand awareness concerns the level of presence a brand has in the minds of customers. Brand awareness is a crucial part of building brand equity, and quite frankly proceeds the brand equity building process, since the brand name and awareness of the brand must be created for customers to be able to have an opinion or perception about it (Aaker, 1991). Hoyer and Brown (1990) relate brand awareness as having a big influence and effect on the customers decision-making process, especially in the context of every day product purchases, or so-called low involvement purchases. High levels of brand awareness are however no guarantee for a higher number of sales (Aaker, 1991), meaning that brand awareness on its own does not generate incitement for customers to purchase a company's products. Percy and Rossiter (1992) mean that customers are actively relying on the awareness and knowledge that customer has of the brands when they decide between products in stores. Due to this circumstance, Percy and Rossiter (1992) argue that brands must actively work with developing the product or package, depending on how it is intended to be shown during advertising or in the store. Brand awareness can be created and obtained through working with certain marketing mix elements (Huang & Sarigöllu, 2012). Advertising increases and establishes brand awareness through exposing customers to the brand (Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al.,2000; Keller, 1993). Krishnan and Chakravarti (1993) state that through advertising, the brand is more likely to be included in the customers so called consideration set, meaning that the customer has the brand top-of-their-mind. This leads to increased sales and thereby enhanced performance (Krishnan & Chakravarti, 1993). Further on, Chi et al. (2009) argue that brand awareness has a potent influence and impact on which brands the customers consider during the decision-making process. Hutter et al. (2013) mean that some brand will end up accumulating in the consideration set of the customers - and these memory nodes of brands will also impact the decision-making process. Further on, Chi et al. (2009) means that a product or a brand which has high levels of awareness, will indeed gain higher preferences in the minds of the customers - simply because that brand or product has a higher market share, and evaluated as of better quality.

Keller (2008) means that anything which contributes to explore of the brand for customers adds to the creation and increase of brand awareness. Customers get repeatedly exposed to products in stores, and the nature of stores is that products are often categorized. Therefore, shelf visibility is particularly important for brand awareness in the context of stores containing several similar products in the same price range, and similar product attributes (Huang & Sarigöllu, 2012). Smith and Park (1992) accentuate how shelf visibility alone is one specifically interesting element in creating brand awareness. Lastly in the context of the marketing mix, Keller (2008) means that price promotion strategies induce the so called switcher (which will be discussed further in the context of brand loyalty) to test the brand, which enhances brand awareness since price promotions contribute to more customers potentially testing the company's products and become aware of it.Aaker (1991) describes how brand awareness involves a continuum, ranging from a state where the customer has a uncertain feeling whether he or she recognizes the brand. To the very other end of the spectra where the customer is certain that this brand is the only brand of choice in this for product category.