intTypePromotion=1
zunia.vn Tuyển sinh 2024 dành cho Gen-Z zunia.vn zunia.vn
ADSENSE
 » 
 » 

Tài sản thương hiệu dựa trên góc độ khách hàng trong xây dựng thương hiệu khách sạn: Nghiên cứu thực tế đối với khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội

Chia sẻ: Vương Tâm Lăng | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:17

Thêm vào BST
Báo xấu
38
lượt xem 3
download
 
  Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Nghiên cứu phân tích những tác động của các thành phần tài sản thương hiệu (Lòng trung thành đối với thương hiệu, Nhận biết thương hiệu, Chất lượng cảm nhận) của thương hiệu các khách sạn đối với ý định sử dụng dịch vụ. Thông qua việc phân tích 105 khách du lịch đang lưu trú tại khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội. Mời các bạn cùng tham khảo!

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Tài sản thương hiệu dựa trên góc độ khách hàng trong xây dựng thương hiệu khách sạn: Nghiên cứu thực tế đối với khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội

  1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY IN HOTEL BRANDING: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON 3-STAR HOTELS LOCATED IN HANOI TÀI SẢN THƯƠNG HIỆU DỰA TRÊN GÓC ĐỘ KHÁCH HÀNG TRONG XÂY DỰNG THƯƠNG HIỆU KHÁCH SẠN: NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC TẾ ĐỐI VỚI KHÁCH SẠN 3 SAO TRÊN ĐỊA BÀN THÀNH PHỐ HÀ NỘI MA. Nguyen Thu Huong; MA. Hoang Thi Thu Trang Thuongmai University huongnt.t@tmu.edu.vn Abstract This paper analyses the impacts of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) parts (i.e., brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality) of hotel brands on purchase intention. Through a study including 105 travellers in Hanoi, it reveals that two CBBE elements relate to directly in- fluence purchase intention. Results suggest that hospitality service providers could generate pos- itive customer responses by improving brand equity through different initiatives. Offering consumers integrated information about a brand from different aspects could enhance their be- havioral intentions. Managers should provide more accurate estimations of marketing efforts and organize information input in a more integrated manner to facilitate message processing and accessibility, which result in increased behavior intention. Keywords: consumer- based brand equity; hotel branding Tóm tắt Nghiên cứu phân tích những tác động của các thành phần tài sản thương hiệu (Lòng trung thành đối với thương hiệu, Nhận biết thương hiệu, Chất lượng cảm nhận) của thương hiệu các khách sạn đối với ý định sử dụng dịch vụ. Thông qua việc phân tích 105 khách du lịch đang lưu trú tại khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội, nghiên cứu đã chỉ ra rằng có hai thành phần (Nhận biết thương hiệu và Chất lượng cảm nhận) có ảnh hưởng trực tiếp tới ý định sử dụng dịch vụ của du khách. Bên cạnh đó, kết quả cũng cho thấy rằng các nhà quản trị của khách sạn có thể tạo ra phản ứng tích cực của khách hàng bằng cách nâng cao tài sản thương hiệu thông qua các cải tiến khác nhau như cung cấp thông tin đầy đủ và các tính toán chính xác hơn về các nỗ lực marketing để tạo điều kiện thuận lợi cho việc xử lý thông điệp và khả năng tiếp cận. Từ khóa: tài sản thương hiệu, xây dựng thương hiệu khách sạn 1. Introduction The global integration has been attributed to the dramatical increase of tourism service sector regrading the quantity and quality dimensions. This development has made a change in hotel’s branding, which require managers to recognize the importance of brands [Yu Xie H. & Boogs D.J. (2006)] 598
  2. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Many previous studies indicate that the profound of brands which can impact on customer’s attachment through creating sensible and emotional feelings of the superior quality services. This lead to the advantage of companies comparing with their rivals in attracting new customers and maintaining repeat ones’s loyalty. Moreover, a branded hotel will have the power to negotiate with partners and suppliers, contributing to the ability of applying more incentives to their customers [Motameni R. & Sharhrokhi M. (1998)]. On the other hand, a strong hotel brand will create higher value for customers and larger profit for shareholders [Kotler & Keller. (2006)]. In branding, hotel services’ brands have many differences from commodity’s brands due to the distinct characteristics between service and good. Hotels often offer two kind of products composed of goods sold such as food, beverages, souvenirs and other goods; and services pro- vided as main services and additional services [Nguyễn Văn Mạnh & Hoàng Thị Lan Hương (2008)]. In particular, main services including room and catering one satisfy the necessity of customers; Additional services could consist of swimming pools, spa, events, travel, etc. Quality of service is measured by customer satisfaction [Parasuraman et al., 1988] and customers’ overall assessment of each service provided during their stays [Bùi Xuân Nhàn (2009)]. Ccustomer satisfaction is based on the difference between their perception and expecta- tions. The expectations of customers will vary depending on standard group of hotels. The mission of the hotel is to design a level of service quality that is higher than the expectations of customers and manage system to minimize errors to improve customer perception. In addition, service qual- ity is positively related to consumers’ emotions, service quality is positively related to behavioral intentions and consumers’ emotions are positively related to behavioral intentions. Moreover, the model postulates that emotional mediated the effect of service quality on behavioral intentions [Ladhari R. (2009)]. As a result, the hotel needs to create a positive feeling for the customer in order to influence their buying behavior and loyalty so far. The changes in the customer behavior in buying process requires a lot of hotel’s adapta- tion in new competitive market. Building brands for hotel services is not only the implementation of services activities to satisfy their customers, but more important their follow-through on all aspects of their customer’s insight. So, through applying consumer-based brand equity model, hotel managers can apprehend the reason why their target customer chose their hotels instead of their rivals. As a result, each hotel has the basis of selecting their different points in order to en- courage brand loyalty to their own services. From all of these above, there is necessary of the re- search about the impact of consumer-based brand equity toward purchase intention. 2. Background 2.1. Consumer-based brand equity definitions “Brand equity” is one of the term widely used by groups of academics and businesses over the world. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in brand equity studies because of their effect on business valuation, especially when its results are useful for the purpose of merge and acquisitions. A considerable amount of literature has been published on brand equity since the 1980. These previous studies have reported that brand equity has formed in multi di- mensions, for example financial - based, market - based, customer - based aspects. To date there 599
  3. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 has been little agreement on what its definitions, effects, and measurement methods, but to the end, most of researches consider that brand equity exists in customer’s mind-set and play a role as the potential intangible asset to create business’s competitive advantage. Currently, there is two sides of brand equity researches. The first group, who agree with using this term, they have done many researches based on Aaker’s model [1996, 1991], and Keller’s model [2003, 1993]. Aaker [1996, page.17] identifies consumer-based brand equity is “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that adds to or sub- tracts from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s consumers.” While Keller [1993] determines “Customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”, and consumer response to marketing is defined in terms of consumer perceptions, preferences, and behaviour arising from marketing mix activity (e.g., brand choice, comprehension of copy points from an ad, reac- tions to a coupon promotion, or evaluations of a proposed brand extension). The common de- nominator in all models is adoption of one or more dimensions from the Aaker model such as Christodoulides and De Chernatony [2010], Liu et al., [2017], Yoo and Donthu [2001]. On that basis, this research uses three common elements as perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand aware- ness in CBBE model, and purchase intention as consumer’s response. Purchase intention (or will- ingness to buy) is the likelihood that a buyer intends to purchase a product or service [Liu et al., (2017), Dodds et al., (1991)], brand have an impact on their purchase behaviour [Kotler & Keller (2012)], brand purchasing intentions are the most important outcome expected from brand per- ception [Foroudi P., Jin Z., Gupta S., et al. (2018)], and perception with higher level can influence consumer’s purchase intention [Pappu & Cooksey (2005)], and brand equity increase purchase intentions and consumer preferences as its consequences [Cobb-Walgren et al., (1995)]. Being on the opposite side of that which the first group agree with “brand equity” term, several researchers prove both the theoretical and empirical evidence to point that “brand equity” appearance is vague and it confuse a lot of practices in business management. On the top of this group is Paul Feldwick who was a former CEO of IBM Group [Feldwick P. (2002)] consider brand value is a set of brand associations and form a brand description in customer’s mind-set. It has profound influence on consumer’s buying process, enhancing company’s market perform- ance shown through their brand preferences and brand loyalty. Despite of some limitations of the theoretical framework, several authors have done their research about brand equity in the service sectors in order to test the hypothesis based on the dif- ferent points of goods and service. In this field, hotel branding and applying consumer - based brand equity have also been well-thought - of topic research, for example Liu et al., [2017], Cobb- Walgren et al., [1995], Bill Xu & Chan, [2010], Kayaman & Arasli [2007]. These researches did not mention about Brand Associations which is the last component of Aaker’s model due to a duplication of several observed variables belongs to Perceived Quality. Therefore, this research use (1) Perceived Quality, (2) Brand Loyalty, (3) Brand awareness as 3 components of CBBE model to examine whether each dimension has direct impact on consumer’s purchase intention in providing hotel services. 600
  4. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 iBrand loyalty According Aaker [1996], brand loyalty is the attachment to a brand/ brands consumers have. Brand loyalty was and is still vital dimension in CBBE model even though some concep- tualizations position brand loyalty as controversial elements and/or a consequence of brand equity, which consists of brand awareness and brand associations. The inclusion of brand loyalty as a part of brand equity allows marketers to justify giving it priority in the brand building budget [Aaker (2013]. Several long - term benefits could be gained such as the lower elasticity in price increase and higher one in price decrease, the greater support when brand extensions and co- branding, brand cooperation exist, the stronger defense against competitors’ marketing activities [Keller (2003)]. Higher brand loyalty could create re-purchase decisions in the next times, and make the brand as a primary choice when consumers buy related goods and services; Brand loy- alty can facilitate favorable brand attitude and generate higher consumer’s purchase intention for hotel brands [Liu et al., (2017)]. Hence, H1: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel services. iPerceived Quality This is one element of the consumer’s brand equity, which is determined as “the con- sumer’s perception of overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to the product or service’s intended purpose and overall feeling about the brand” (Aaker [1996], Keller [2013]). Perceived quality is considered a “core/primary” facet across customer-based brand eq- uity frameworks and customer is likely to perceive the brand as offering superior quality will be- come more brand loyal [Kayaman R. & Arasli H. (2007)]. In his studies about service quality, Zeithaml [1998] indicates that there is a wide-speared trend in studying the relationship between service quality and purchase intentions but they are insufficient works linking purchase intentions to purchase behaviours. Considering his findings, Liu et al., (2017)] conceptualizes perceived quality as a brand’s value proposition that renders customers endogenous to value creation, and embraces a process orientation in the service encounter that has superiority over other hotel brands. Due to being associated with brand preferences protecting consumers from rivals’ en- ticement, greater perceived quality is an important advantage of businesses in their competition [Yoo B. & Donthu N. (2001)]. Hence, H2: Perceived quality has a positive effect on customer’s purchase intention for hotel services iBrand awareness The most popular element considered in consumer - based brand equity studies is brand awareness. Brand awareness is the consumer’s ability to recognize and recall a brand [Keller (1993)]. The creation of brand awareness is the first stage in building brand equity [Aaker (1991)]. Customers will trigger a positive response if they have familiarity of a brand due to having a little information [Bill Xu J. & Chan A. (2010)]. Hence, H3: Brand awareness has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel services. 601
  5. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 iPurchase intention Purchase intention is a customer plan to buy a specific brand. According to Chang et al., [2008], in service branding, ‘purchase intention is the willingness to continue using the service provided by specific suppliers’. The purchase intention represents the possibility that consumers will plan to purchase a certain product or service in the future (Wu et al., 2011, cited in [Calvo- Porral & Lévy-Mangin J.-P. (2017)]. Regarding the approach of Aaker [1996, 1991], brand equity has a positive impact on the purchase intention of customers, and marketers are interested in un- derstanding consumer’s purchase intention, so that they are able to properly segment the market and as a source to their decision making [Ping (2014]. 2.2. Hotel branding Until now, there is few number of researches focusing on hotel branding, divided into two parts: branding through employees’s attitude and branding through customers’s perceptions. For the first part, the research showed that to deliver the brand promise, hotels need to emphasize the unique features of their service offering as reflected in the brand and their employees [King & Grace D. (2013)]; for the second part, when applying CBBE model, it is important to understand that: As Liu et al., [2017] wrote: “The different effect of each CBBE element on different consumer responses indicates that marketing efforts on each aspect of CBBE must vary. Managers should provide more accurate estimations of marketing efforts and organize information input in a more integrated manner to facilitate message processing and attitude accessibility, which result in increased behavior intention” As Kayaman and Arasli [2007] indicated: “Customer based brand equity is not only valuable tool for hotel practitioners but also for other service industry practitioners to evaluate their marketing efforts. Necessary feedback can be obtained from consumers for this evaluation will aid in: identifying service product related problems; identifying advertising/positioning problems; and also providing feedback to the employees on where improvements need to be made” As Bill Xu and Chan [2010] suggested: “... The input of experiential marketing program with emphasis on the socio-psychological needs into hotel brand equity management. In other words, hotel companies are able to positively impact brand equity by ensuring the fulfillment of guests’ socio-psychological needs during their stays.” In conclusion, research on branding for hotels is still limited in quantity. This is an opportunity for the authors to continue research and to find theoretical frameworks and practices to help hotel managers improve overall service performance. 3. Purpose, Question, and Hypothese of Research This research aims to understand and analyze the effect of each consumer - based brand equity on purchase intention. Therefore, it is going to focus on two questions: 602
  6. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Q1. These elements of consumer - based brand equity (Brand awareness, Brand loyalty and Perceived quality) have a negative or positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention? Q2. How is the impact of these elements on consumer’s purchase intention? And 3 hypotheses will be tested including: H1: Brand awareness has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel services H2: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel services H3: Perceived quality has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel services 4. Methodology 4.1. Kind of data This research used the primary data which was collected through questionnaires. We un- derstood clearly that questionnaires have its own advantages, for example the ease of distribution within geographical area; and drawbacks, for instance the limit of honesty in correspondents’ an- swers. To keep under control, we designed our questionnaires with structured questions which are considered and investigated by some specialists in tourism service. 4.2. Questionnaire design The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect consumer’s assignment about hotel services, which are to construct perceptual measurements of each dimension in consumer’s brand equity model. The questionnaire includes three parts. Part 1 consists of all observed variables of three di- mensions in CBBE model. In more details, Brand awareness has 3 variables, Brand Loyalty has 4 variables, and Perceived Quality has 11 variables. Purchase intention as a dependent variable, which is observed through 3 variables. Part 2 is composed of respondent’s demographic charac- teristics. They are Age group, Gender, Occupation, Current living province. Part 3 is the part for interviewers with hotel’s general information. A total of 27 questions including 21 ones in part 1 and 6 ones in part 2; on the other hand, 24 structured questions and 3 non - structured questions (See Table 1) Table 1. Core items of each dimension in designed questionnaire CBBE Items Original source elements Brand I will not stay at other hotels if this hotel is available. Yoo et all loyalty I will not stay at other hotels if this hotel is available. (2001) This hotel is my first choice compared to other hotels I would not switch to another hotel the next time. I consider myself to be loyal to this hotel 603
  7. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Brand I am aware of the hotel. Yoo et all awareness I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of the hotel. (2001) I can recognize the hotel among other competing brands. Perceived The staff treat you as a special and valued consumer. Kim and Kim quality The hotel has up-to-date equipment. (2005) The appearance of members (clean, neat, appropriately dressed). The hotel staff exhibits a good manner. The hotel provides its services at promised times. The hotel staff handles complaints of consumers effectively. The hotel staff actively communicates with consumers. Attractiveness of the hotel. The knowledge and confidence of the staff. The quality of food and beverages. The hotel staff anticipates your specific needs and serves you appropriately Purchase I will consider staying at this hotel. Moon et al., intention I am glad to stay at this hotel. (2008) I am glad to recommend this hotel to others. Liu and Brock (2011) Source: Liu et al., 2017 4.3. Data collection With the purpose of this study, the population is all tourists consuming hotel accommoda- tion services in Hanoi. However, in this study limited resources, the research team focused on three-star hotels in Hanoi. A list of three-star hotels was recorded on the Tourism Administration’s database of 37 hotels. The study uses a random combined with convenient sampling method. Accordingly, the random sampling method was used to select the hotels participating in the survey. A convenient method of selecting a respondent is a tourist who is using a hotel accommodation service. The sample size is based on the standards of the analysis method, this study uses an Exploratory Factor Analysis to test the validity of scale and a linear multiple regression with the least squares coefficient model to determine the level of each CBBE element’s impact on consumers’ purchase intention. As a result, a sample size, which is calculated by 5 times the total of these observed variables, is 105 questionnaires [Hair (2010)]. After calculating the sample size, the authors list all of three stars hotels in Hanoi and select hotels taking part into. Collaborators moved to these places and discussed to receptionists and reception managers about survey plans. The number of questionnaires distributed among all hotels participating in the survey. 4.4. Data analysis The study used Cronbach’s Alpha to test the reliability of the scale, and the Explore factor 604
  8. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 analysis to determine the validity of the scale. The validity of the scale consists of two parts: con- vergence and discriminant validity. Convergent validity explores whether or not observed vari- ables represent the variables to be studied. Discriminant validity indicates that the observation variable is sufficiently specific to represent the variable being studied. 4.4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranges from 0.7 to 0.8, which is very good with a range of 0.8 - 0.95, acceptable between 0.6 and 0.7. And if less than 0.6 are required to exclude from the study [Hoàng Trọng & Chu Nguyễn Mộng Ngọc (2011)]. If the value of Alpha> 0.95, then the difference in content on the scale for the observation variable, which means that the same measure of phenomena [Đinh Bá Hùng Anh & Tô Ngọc Hoàng Kim (2010), page.142] In order to be able to hold the observation variable, the result of the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of the component scale should satisfy both conditions: (1) the total variance greater than 0.3; (2) Cronbach’s Alpha if the variable is smaller than the current Cronbach’s Alpha. Based on the results of the analysis, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient table is expressed as: Table 2. Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Squared Mul- Cronbach’s Item Deleted if Item Item-Total tiple Correla- Alpha if Item Deleted Correlation tion Deleted Brand Awareness Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87 BA.Q1 5.94 3.785 .708 .549 .855 BA.Q2 5.98 3.346 .835 .698 .737 BA.Q3 5.88 3.700 .714 .560 .850 Perceived Quality Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.933 PQ.Q8 34.51 54.923 .764 .654 .925 PQ.Q9 34.43 56.368 .699 .623 .928 PQ.Q10 34.41 57.188 .682 .646 .928 PQ.Q11 34.28 58.216 .708 .652 .928 PQ.Q12 34.50 56.156 .733 .696 .926 PQ.Q13 34.60 55.447 .725 .700 .926 PQ.Q14 34.60 55.859 .736 .656 .926 PQ.Q15 34.63 56.284 .677 .564 .929 PQ.Q16 34.56 56.340 .705 .618 .927 PQ.Q17 34.48 55.631 .772 .699 .924 PQ.Q18 34.66 57.532 .733 .645 .926 605
  9. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Brand Loyalty Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.86 BL.Q4 10.00 6.984 .705 .549 .823 BL.Q5 9.92 6.255 .753 .599 .801 BL.Q6 9.92 6.059 .744 .561 .807 BL.Q7 10.03 7.435 .635 .436 .849 Purchase Intention Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.882 PI.Q19 6.78 3.277 .726 .530 .872 PI.Q20 6.88 2.929 .782 .629 .823 PI.Q21 6.74 2.945 .808 .658 .800 These tables figure out the high level of reliability. However, the high Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is a signal for the duplication of the scale, or it may be assumed that the respondent thinks that many of the questions are of the same nature. 4.4.2. Validity results The study used the extraction method Principal Components Analysis with the Varimax rotation technique. And these conditions to satisfy in factor analysis include: (1) factor loading values >0.5; (2) 0.5
  10. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure .819 of Sampling Adequacy. Approx. Chi-Square 407.082 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity df 21 Sig. .000 Table 5. Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative % Component Variance % Variance 1 4.152 59.312 59.312 4.152 59.312 59.312 2 1.016 14.520 73.832 1.016 14.520 73.832 3 .597 8.534 82.366 4 .496 7.080 89.446 5 .305 4.362 93.808 6 .243 3.476 97.284 7 .190 2.716 100.000 Table 6. Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 BA.Q1 .823 BA.Q2 .911 BA.Q3 .792 PQ.Q8 .690 PQ.Q9 .849 PQ.Q10 .852 PQ.Q11 .705 5. Findings In order to conduct hypotheses test, the multiple regression model is used to test and explain the causal - effect theory. In this study, linear multiple regression is the appropriate method for validating hypotheses. To test for three hypotheses, the multiple regression model was developed as follows: Yi = β0 + β1iX1i + β2iX2i + ei 607
  11. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 With: Yi is consumer’s purchase intention; b1i, b2i are the normalization coefficient of the regression equation and ei is the random error with the normal distribution - the mean is zero - the independent and constant variance; b0 is the intercept. Correlation: Using Pearson correlation to examine the linear correlation between dependent and independent variables. This is one of the conditions required by the linear regression model. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) values range from -1 to 1, and the significance of this correlation coefficient is statistically significant equal to P (P-
  12. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Table 9. Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coeffi- Standardized t Sig. Model cients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta .000 1.000 1 (Constant) 1.604E-016 .058 .576 9.965 .000 Perceived Quality_2 Brand .576 .571 9.879 .000 Awareness .571 .058 From the above results, some of the statements are given as follows: Firstly, this model was statistically significant at p
  13. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 This study considers an emerging market in a local hotel setting, especially with 3 - stars hotels. Results provide practical guidelines for managers and marketers in the local hotel industry to balance their resources and efforts in marketing activities to improve marketing effectiveness. The role of brand equity could help managers understand brand equity’s role in consumers’ eval- uation and decision-making processes. The different effect of each CBBE element on different consumer responses indicates that marketing efforts on each aspect of CBBE must vary. Managers should provide more accurate estimations of marketing efforts and organize information input in a more integrated manner to facilitate message processing and attitude accessibility, which result in increased behavior intention. 7. Limitation This study has several limitations. First of all, some previous researches indicated that there has had a relationship between brand equity elements, which we did not test within our model research. Secondly, the random and convenience sampling method suffers from common methods bias (CMB) and nonresponse bias. Thirdly, this study is restricted to the 3 - stars hotels of one geographic area. Future studies can replicate this study in a different area with various service brands to determine generalizability. Finally, the sample of respondents is composed of tourists and business travelers, but this research did not examine whether a significant difference exists in CBBE among demographic variables, among repeat and first-time guests... Future studies can investigate the relationship between CBBE model and various consumer groups. REFERENCE Book: 1. Aaker D.A. (1996), Building strong brands, Free Press, New York. 2. Aaker D.A. (1991), Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name, Free Press ; Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell Macmillan International, New York : Toronto : New York. 3. Keller K.L. (2003), Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing brand equity, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. 4. Kotler P. and Keller K.L. (2012), Marketing management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. 5. Feldwick P. (2002), What is brand equity, anyway? selected papers on brands and ad- vertising, World Advertising Research Center, Oxfordshire. 6. Hair J.F., ed. (2010), Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 7. Trọng H. and Ngọc C.N.M. (2011), Thống kê ứng dụng trong kinh tế - xã hội, Nhà xuất bản Lao động - Xã hội. 8. Anh Đ.B.H. and Kim T.N.H (2010). Nghiên cứu khoa học trong kinh tế - xã hội, Nhà xuất bản Kinh tế Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. 610
  14. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Journals: 1. Yu Xie H. and Boogs D.J. (2006). Corporate branding versus product branding in emerg- ing markets: A conceptual framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(4), 347–364. 2. Motameni R. and Sharhrokhi M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: a global perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(4), 275–290. 3. Kotler P. and Keller K.L. (2006), Holistic Marketing: A Broad, Intergrated Perspective to Maketing Management, M.E Sharpe. 4. Bùi Xuân Nhàn. (2009), Tourism Marketing, Statistics Publishing House. 5. Ladhari R. (2009). Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: A study in the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(3), 308–331. 6. Keller K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1. 7. Christodoulides G. and De Chernatony L. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity con- ceptualization and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1), 43–66. 8. Liu M.T., Wong I.A., Tseng T.-H., et al. (2017). Applying consumer-based brand equity in luxury hotel branding. Journal of Business Research, 81, 192–202. 9. Yoo B. and Donthu N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer- based brand equity scale. Journal of business research, 52(1), 1–14. 10. Dodds W.B., Monroe K.B., and Grewal D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. 11. Foroudi P., Jin Z., Gupta S., et al. (2018). Perceptional components of brand equity: Configuring the Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Paths to brand loyalty and brand purchase in- tention. Journal of Business Research. 12. Pappu R., Quester P.G., and Cooksey R.W. (2005). Consumer‐based brand equity: im- proving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 143–154. 13. Cobb-Walgren C., Cynthia R., and Naveen D. (1995). Brand equity, Brand preference, and Purchase Intention. Journal of Advertising, 24(3). 14. Bill Xu J. and Chan A. (2010). A conceptual framework of hotel experience and cus- tomer‐based brand equity: Some research questions and implications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 174–193. 15. Kayaman R. and Arasli H. (2007). Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(1), 92–109. 16. Aaker D.A. (2013). What Is Brand Equity and Why is it Valuable?. . 611
  15. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 17. Zeithaml V.A. (2000). Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of Cus- tomers: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- ence, 28(1), 67–85. 18. Chang H.H., Hsu C.-H., and Chung S.H. (2008). The Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Equity in Service Markets. Asia Pacific Management Review, 25. 19. Calvo-Porral C. and Lévy-Mangin J.-P. (2017). Store brands’ purchase intention: Ex- amining the role of perceived quality. European Research on Management and Business Eco- nomics, 23(2), 90–95. 20. Ping L. (2014). Factors affecting purchase intention towards smartphone brand: A study of young female adult consumers. 105. 21. King C., So K.K.F., and Grace D. (2013). The influence of service brand orientation on hotel employees’ attitude and behaviors in China. International Journal of Hospitality Man- agement, 34, 172–180. 22. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 64, pp. 12 - 40. Appendix Appendix A - List of 3 - stars hotels in Hanoi Hotels District (in Hanoi) Number of Rooms Year of certification Lake side Hotel Ba Dinh 78 1997 Paradise Ba Dinh 62 2010 Thang Long Opera Hoan Kiem 61 2011 Golden Silk Boutique Hoan Kiem 55 2012 Khan quang do Ba Dinh 50 2013 Lan Vien Hoan Kiem 115 2013 Danly Ba Dinh 51 2014 Royal Gate Ba Dinh 58 2014 Cau Giay Cau Giay 56 2014 Sen Cau Giay 50 2014 Sen 2 Cau Giay 60 2014 Hanoi La Rosa Dong Da 66 2014 A 25 ASEAN Dong Da 54 2014 Cong doan Viet Nam Hai Ba Trung 125 2014 Hanoi Pearl Hoan Kiem 60 2014 Golden Cyclo Hoan Kiem 50 2014 Sen Vang Hoan Kiem 50 2014 Authentic Hanoi Hoan Kiem 52 2014 Medallion Hanoi Hoan Kiem 64 2014 612
  16. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Cong doan Quang Ba Tay Ho 2014 Hoa Nam Ung Hoa 55 2014 Riverside Hanoi Cau Giay 73 2015 Minh Cuong Dong Anh 50 2015 Eastin Easy GTC Dong Da 57 2015 Eden Hai Ba Trung 56 2015 Ladolce Vita Hoan Kiem 52 2015 Super Hanoi Old Quarter Hoan Kiem 50 2015 Mecure Hanoi La Gare Hoan Kiem 100 2015 Boss Legend Hoan Kiem 50 2015 Hoa Binh Hoan Kiem 88 2015 Tan Da Ba Vi 60 2016 Hancio Dong Da 35 2016 Asia Hai Ba Trung 53 2016 La Siesta Hoan Kiem 50 2016 Kuratake Inn Ba Dinh 85 2017 My Way Cau Giay 62 2017 Sao Mai Dong Da 50 2017 Source: Vietnam Tourism ( http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/index.php/cat/97) Appendix C - Descriptive statistics BA. BA. BA. BL. BL. BL. BL. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PI. PI. PI. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 mode 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 median 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 mean 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.5 Standard 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 deviation min 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 max 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 613
  17. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Appendix B - Characteristics of the Respondents 614
ADSENSE

CÓ THỂ BẠN MUỐN DOWNLOAD

CMO.03: Bộ Tài Liệu Hệ Thống Quản Trị Marketing Thương Hiệu
385 tài liệu
1271 lượt tải
THÔNG TIN
TRỢ GIÚP
HỖ TRỢ KHÁCH HÀNG
Theo dõi chúng tôi

Chịu trách nhiệm nội dung:

Nguyễn Công Hà - Giám đốc Công ty TNHH TÀI LIỆU TRỰC TUYẾN VI NA

LIÊN HỆ

Địa chỉ: P402, 54A Nơ Trang Long, Phường 14, Q.Bình Thạnh, TP.HCM

Hotline: 093 303 0098

Email: support@tailieu.vn

Giấy phép Mạng Xã Hội số: 670/GP-BTTTT cấp ngày 30/11/2015 Copyright © 2022-2032 TaiLieu.VN. All rights reserved.

 

Đồng bộ tài khoản
2=>2