Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

This article was downloaded by: [14.97.145.198] On: 20 December 2013, At: 08:37 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20

Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian business schools a

b

Ashita Aggarwal Sharma , Vithala R. Rao & Sapna Popli

c

a

S.P Jain Institute of Management & Research, Bhavan's Campus, Munshi Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400058, India b

Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 351 Sage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-6201, USA c

IILM Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India Published online: 17 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Ashita Aggarwal Sharma, Vithala R. Rao & Sapna Popli (2013) Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian business schools, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23:2, 175-203, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2013.866609 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2013.866609

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content�) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2013 Vol. 23, No. 2, 175 –203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2013.866609

Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian business schools ∗

Ashita Aggarwal Sharmaa , Vithala R. Raob and Sapna Poplic a

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

S.P Jain Institute of Management & Research, Bhavan’s Campus, Munshi Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400058, India; bJohnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 351 Sage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-6201, USA; cIILM Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India

Brands are fundamentally about experiences and relationships, and therefore they form prime basis of an institution’s connection with their stakeholders. With the mushrooming of business schools (both private autonomous and government supported) and fading global boundaries, especially in the Indian context, communicating a business school brand to stakeholders has become extremely important. It is imperative for Indian business schools to differentiate and build strong brands in the competitive business education space in India. Brand building helps in creating, evolving and enhancing a brand’s positioning and its perceptions among stakeholders. These perceptions are critical in influencing behavior and hence the performance of an institution. The paper aims to assess the brand equity of select Indian business schools (from the prospective student’s perspective) using a familiarity – perception–preference–choice framework. The branding framework proposed in this study highlights how consumer-based brand equity measures can be used to improve business school positioning and hence the brand image. This paper gives an opportunity to extend the current knowledge in measuring the brand equity of business schools, especially in India. This study would help institutions apply brand equity measurements to their business schools and implement focused branding efforts to gain a higher student share and build quality education brands.

Keywords: brand equity; Indian business schools; consumer-based brand equity; branding; management education

Introduction Brands are pivotal sources for generating and sustaining a competitive advantage, which not only helps in minimizing quality gaps but also is a source of strong and favorable differentiators (Aaker, 1996). The world of Indian business education is in an enriching churn and the last 20 years have seen a phenomenal growth of business education in India. The process of liberalization, ∗

Corresponding author. Email: ashita.sharma@spjimr.org

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

176

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

privatization, and globalization has not only replaced the traditional approach with a more professional approach, but also introduced several contemporary courses to meet the industry demand (Kumar & Dash, 2011). Building a business school brand has become an important agenda for business school administration and leadership. Challenges from newer institutions, shrinking global boundaries, fragmentation of consumers, more stringent competition and increased expectations on brand performance have increased the importance of assessing brand equity for business schools. However, there has been very limited academic research to understand the role played by business school brand equity, especially in the Indian context.

Need for branding business schools: Education branding worldwide is still largely at the stage of differentiation, which is based on self-defined sets of attributes and benefits. The Ivy League/top ranking schools have a prestigious history or legacy that differentiates them based on reputation built over years, but other schools are still striving to establish their own differentiated value proposition. Currently schools are focusing more on functional attributes – which are ‘parity points’ rather than ‘differentiators’, but they need to uncover the intangible attributes on which they can position themselves. In a global market where functionally similar products and services are available from a wide range of suppliers, the ‘brand name’ has become an important differentiating tool, as it offers promise of value and quality to consumers (Kartono & Rao, 2008). Strong brands help consumers cut through the proliferation of choices available in product and service categories.

The goal of brand building in educational institutions is to create awareness in the minds of target audiences and focus on the intersection of the institution’s core values and the expectations of target audience. Branding is about finding the sweet spot between what the institution is and what their audience wants (Sevier & Sickler, 2004). Parameswaran and Glowacka (1995) in their study of university image conclude that higher education institutions need to maintain or develop a distinct image to create an advantage in an increasingly competitive market. It is this image that will impact students’ willingness to apply to that institution for enrolment or for other research and developmental activities.

The image portrayed by the institution of higher education plays a critical role in the attitudes of the institution’s publics toward that institution (Yavas & Shemwell, 1996).

In today’s complex and highly competitive marketplace, universities and colleges are turning to branding as a solution in dealing with global challenges.

Topor (2005) suggests that the Chivas Regal Effect is another important reason for branding business schools and to build reputation capital, which can be done by enhancing brand equity and goodwill. A college or university with large stock of reputation capital actually gains a competitive advantage against rivals because reputation enables it to charge a premium.

Brand equity measures the value of the brand, and it is of particular relevance for consumer choice. Although the concept has been extensively

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

177

researched in the context of physical products, less attention has been devoted to its understanding in the service sector, especially in higher education (Mourad, Ennew, & Kortam, 2010). This is particularly so in the area of business school branding, despite it being high on credence and experience qualities (Palacio, Meneses, & Perez, 2002; Saeed & Ehsan, 2010). Business education provides an interesting and important context for research as business schools across the world are becoming more market oriented.

With this background, this paper proposes a framework of familiarity – perception –preference – choice for measuring business school brand equity and improve the brand image among students as stakeholders. The framework includes determinants relating to brand awareness (familiarity) and brand image dimensions (the perceived quality – product and service attributes; overall brand image – symbolic attribute; and perceived value for money (VFM)) of the business school which can affect the preference, the willingness to pay a price premium and choice of a business school brand (behavioral indicators/outcomes of brand equity) (Keller, 1993). The empirical research conducted with prospective students as stakeholders aims to assess the perceived brand equity of the selected Indian business schools and study the relationship among variables suggested in this framework. The relationships established in this research can be used to improve business school positioning to influence students’ preferences toward a school and also their actual behavior (probability of joining the school and willingness to pay the fee premium).

Research questions (1) How do the various independent and dependent measures of customerbased brand equity (CBBE) relate to each other in business school brand decisions?

(2) How well can the brand equity measures predict the actual ranking of business schools as done by external agencies?

The paper is organized into six sections. The second section that follows describes the current scenario of Indian business schools. The third section provides a review of relevant literature on brand equity. The methodology and framework employed in the empirical study is presented in the fourth section, followed by study results in the fifth section. The sixth section gives conclusions, implications and suggestions for future research.

Indian business education The Indian higher education sector is heterogeneous with different types of institutions coexisting and facing challenges of sustaining and communicating their quality. Hence the branding of education institutions is expected to become

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

178

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

more important and vital for their growth and survival (Harsha & Shah, 2011).

The first full-time management program in India was introduced in 1957 by Andhra University. Foreseeing the demand and importance of management education, the All India Institute of Management and Social Welfare, Kolkata and Delhi University started their management programs in 1958, followed by the setting up of IIM Calcutta and IIM Ahmadabad in 1961 and 1962 in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management (MIT) and Harvard Business School, respectively. Many other business schools including other IIMs (Indian Institute of Management) and XLRI (Xaviers Labour Relations Institute) emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. By 1990, 82 university-based departments and business schools were functioning in the country. Newer IIMs were also established in Lucknow, Indore and Kozhikode by the end of 1990s (Sinha, 2006). However, post-1991, there was an unparalleled growth in the Indian management education sector and the number of business schools increased from about 100 in 1988 to over 200 in 1993, nearly 800 in 2003, 1052 in 2005 –2006 and approximately 1940 by 2010 (Kumar & Dash, 2011).

This phenomenal growth in supply of business schools was largely due to the changing business scenario in India. After the economic liberalization in 1991, India saw a huge growth in its business sector with increasing demand for qualified managers in business enterprises, and non-profit and non-governmental organizations. Professionally managed organizations were looking for people familiar with business semantics and thinking, which brought hope to the aspiring managerial class, especially those on the sidelines of India Inc. to dive into jobs that brought wealth and respect. This change in India implied hiring someone receiving a stamp (degree) from a top ranking MBA school (Business Today, 2010). India’s seemingly unstoppable economic rise, an aspiring middle class desire to stand out in a competitive job market and a lucrative opportunity for investors fuelled a bubble in the business education marketspace (Shah, 2012). Each year IIMs alone receive over 200,000 applications and such huge demand is primarily the result of prestige associated with the MBA profession, the employment potential and the image associated with some of the top business schools in the country. Being admitted to a top business school is like ‘being born with the silver spoon’; as everything including a dream job falls into place at the end of the program. Barring the prestigious administrative and foreign services of India, MBA ranks first in the pecking order of professions (Philip, 2008). Overall, management education is a big business not just in India but across the world. The global management education market is estimated at approx. US$22 billion and growing annually at 10– 12% (Friga, Bettis, & Sullivan, 2003).

Over the past four decades, IIMs, which are the super league schools in India, have withstood the test of time and emerged as centers of excellence.

The acronym IIM connotes a very strong brand image, but there were several factors including faculty, location, recruiters and research that helped build the brand, says Chandra of IIM-B (Business Today, 2009). The 51-year-old

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

179

IIM Ahmadabad is considered the best B-School in the country and the IIM brand is second only to the IIT brand (Indian Institute of Technology) in terms of recognition and imagery (Yesodharan, 2004). Besides legacy, there are many other factors which have made IIMs the most coveted institutions.

According to Bakul Dholakia, Director of IIM Ahmadabad (IIMA), the IIM brand encompasses the quality of students, a focus on diverse areas of training and the contemporary nature of the faculty. The alumni also play a big role as brand ambassadors. Finally, to excel as a brand, IIMA has cultivated a global image through interfacing with alumni globally and offering students an international exposure. P.G. Apte, Director IIM Bangalore, said that rigorous student selection, an excellent learning environment, wide choice in the learning process, flow back of experiences into syllabus and pedagogy, and top quality academic and physical infrastructure are among the factors responsible for creating the brand that the IIMs represent (Yesodharan, 2004). It takes more than a decade for an institution to establish its reputation, as it is then that their graduates start making an impact on industry. As of now, the position occupied

by IIMs in India seems difficult to replace (Sudarshan, 2011).

The Indian business education market is a cluttered space, with the presence of business schools that are private autonomous, promoted by state and central universities, independent government supported and those promoted by corporations (Sinha, 2006). As the market is lucrative and the competition is increasing rapidly, it is particularly important for business schools to have a branddriven growth.

Literature review on brand equity Business schools need to highlight their differentiating characteristics to create high brand awareness and preference among the stakeholders (applicants, faculty, industry, government and possible partners); the efforts of which are reflected in their brand equity measures. Bisoux (2010) says that a business school can spend years in establishing and reinforcing its brand. Along with a strong brand, a school needs a clear statement of purpose to lead its community in a single direction.

As competition increases for students, universities need to create and maintain a distinct image in the marketplace (Keever, 1998). According to the Business of Branding Report published by EFMD and CarringtonCrisp (CarringtonCrisp, EFMD, & ABS, 2012), the core product offered by many business schools is similar and prospective students believe that there is little that differentiates one school from the other. The report recommends that a great brand be backed up by a high-quality educational experience in order to make a difference in the student’s decision-making.

Since education is becoming less differentiated (more or less like a commodity) across the globe, educational institutions tend to consider students as customers who represent a major stakeholder group. Student feedback in terms

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

180

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

of measuring business school image has currently become an essential line of enquiry (Segev, Raveh, & Farjoun, 1999). Due to changes in the funding system, students increasingly regard themselves as customers. Hence, higher educational institutions are under greater pressure to build and maintain a good reputation for customer service, and invest in creating a more customer friendly environment (Chapleo, 2007). For the customer, the value of a brand arises from its role as an indicator of desirable attributes and is the basis for building an emotional bond (Teas & Grapentine, 1996). Kotler and Fox (1995) suggested that the public forms images of higher education institutions based on limited information, and these images affect the likelihood of people attending or recommending the institution. It is the university’s perceived excellence and service quality that guides the attendance decision of its prospective students.

The concept of measuring the value of the brand began in the early 1980s with the coining of the term ‘brand equity’ by advertising professionals in the USA (Barwise, 1993). Keller (1993) identifies two motivating reasons for measuring brand equity. The first stems from the growing need to develop sound procedures for estimating the financial value of a brand for mergers and acquisitions. The second motivation for studying brand equity comes from the impetus for firms to improve the efficiency of their marketing program by better understanding of consumer’s perceptions and their response to marketing actions.

Brand equity has been defined in many different ways by academics and practitioners worldwide. The multi-faceted nature of brand equity and the absence of any single accepted framework have resulted in a number of different conceptualizations for the construct (Kartono & Rao, 2008). The literature on brand equity, although substantial, is largely fragmented and inconclusive.

The lack of an agreed definition has in turn spawned various methodologies for measuring the construct (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2009).

Brand equity measurements have been developed along three theoretical streams: finance, psychology and economics. The financial and economic perspectives are also referred to as firm-based brand equity (FBBE) measures.

Financial outcome measures of brand equity assess the value of the brand as a financial asset to the firm. Simon and Sullivan (1993) defined brand equity as an intangible asset whose value can be extracted from the market value of the firm. Dubin (1998) adds the income method for brand valuation wherein the brand earning multiplier is used to calculate the brand’s expected future earnings based on historical data. This method is also used by Interbrand (a global brand valuation company). The economic orientation of measuring brand equity includes two inter-related theories: (i) the consumer utility theory to assess the brand equity from the consumer’s perspective and (ii) economic theories of demand and supply to measure the value of the brand to the firm (Kartono & Rao, 2008). FBBE measures are therefore the outcome of the consumer’s response to the brand and the brand is considered as a

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

181

driving force for increased market share and brand profitability. In psychological orientation, researchers employ a cognitive psychology approach to study how consumers perceive and process information about the brand to develop relevant brand equity measures (Keller, 2001, 2002). These measures are based on CBBE (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2009). This paper focuses on the psychology-based brand equity measures according to the framework of familiarity – perception – preference –choice as described earlier.

Aaker (1991) defines brand equity as the set of assets like name awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality and associations that are linked to the brand and add value to the products/services being offered. He presents a framework of brand equity that comprises four key measures of the consumer mindset – brand loyalty, awareness, perceived quality and brand associations along with other proprietary brand assets that give brands a competitive advantage.

Aaker’s (1996) model of brand equity augments his 1991 framework by adding market-based assessment measures that correspond to the brand’s market share, price and distribution coverage.

Keller (1993) looks at brand equity from the consumer psychology perspective and introduces the concept of CBBE. He defines brand equity as the ‘differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing of the brand’. His framework includes two key dimensions of brand awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image (all possible associations for the brand) and classifies the method of measuring customer-based brand equity into direct and indirect approaches. The direct method measures the consumer’s response to the marketing of branded product, relative to the unbranded offering. Such outcomes can be measured in terms of the consumers’ behavior or preferences (stated/observed) after exposure to marketing activity and can be expressed in terms of their utility, purchase intent, past behavior, brand evaluations (or ratings) and willingness to pay a premium among other measures. His indirect approach to measure CBBE identifies the sources of brand equity in the minds of the consumers that drive consumer behavior and action outcomes. It involves measuring of constructs like awareness, associations, perceptions and brand evaluations, and much of academic research on CBBE uses this approach (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2009).

However, indirect measures of brand equity lack agreement on what dimensions constitute CBBE. Researchers believe that there is no such thing as a universal measure for brand equity and that the market sector and the life stage of the brand need to be accounted for when selecting an appropriate measure to assess brand equity (Baker, Nancarron, & Tinson, 2005; Mourad et al. 2010).

Ambler (2000) points out that many confuse the brand equity with brand valuation (worth of asset). For Ambler, value creation is a much more diffused process which should focus on the value that the brand creates for stakeholders.

Business schools cater and create value for multiple stakeholders including students, faculty, alumni, industry, etc. Brand equity is hence both the ingredient and the outcome of this value creation process.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

182

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Higher education represents a context in which brand image potentially plays a major role in reducing the risk associated with the service largely because the assessment of quality takes place after consumption. Hence a strong brand is important to simplify the decision-making process (Byron, 1995; Chen, 2008). In addition, there are a number of factors that directly influence the evaluation of education quality and hence the perception of a business school brand (Kurz, Scannell, & Veeder, 2008). These factors include staff, location, size, history, legacy and international presence (Chen, 2008; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2008; Mourad, 2010). Finally, the social image of the education institution and its overall position in the market are important in influencing the higher education brand equity (Paden & Stell, 2006).

The aggregate brand equity of a business school, which affects its performance and ranking, is the summated brand equity from all its stakeholders. Stakeholder framework shown in Table 1 highlights the critical business school stakeholders at each stage of its operations (Input, Process and Output) and how perceptions influence the behavior of various stakeholders, the B-school performance and thus its brand equity. To summarize, business schools across the world today need to focus on their brand and measure the equity as the latter directly impacts performance and rankings.

This paper focuses on the indirect approach to measuring CBBE for many reasons: (i) the CBBE measures allow the assessment of equity at the brand level; (ii) a lot of published research uses this kind of measure and (iii) several practicing managers are more familiar and comfortable with consumer-based measures. Thus, managers can use this approach as a diagnostic tool for decision-making. Literature suggests that in the absence of commonly agreed measures of brand equity, each sector and brand need to identify its best-suited variables (Baker et al., 2005). In order to integrate varied measures of brand equity, this study uses the framework based on the perception–preference– choice paradigm and the hierarchy of effects model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961; McGuire, 1972). According to Agarwal and Rao (1996), this framework provides measures linked to stages through which a consumer passes in the ‘purchase’ process and hence can be useful diagnostic information for managers. In a comprehensive study on the measures of CBBE, they found that most indirect measures (with the exception of unaided recall) have convergent validity and hence are appropriate measures for brand equity construct. Mackay (2001) replicates the work of Agarwal and Rao and shows that most of the measures are found to be convergent to estimate choice. This replication provides confidence in the selection of the range of brand equity measures that are employed in this study.

Methodology The study: measures of brand equity This research attempts to explore the relevance and importance of customerbased brand equity measures in the business school context and its possible

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

183

role in strengthening a business school brand. Such study of consumer’s perceptions will help business schools improve the efficiency of their marketing program and also provide guidelines for international expansion and portfolio enhancement.

This paper proposes the CBBE measures related to different stages of hierarchy in business school decision-making for the calculation of brand equity.

These are based on extant literature in branding (Agarwal & Rao, 1996).

Broad ranges of factors were identified, recognizing that they are relevant to

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Table 1. Stakeholder framework for business schools.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

184

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

both the awareness dimension and the image dimension of Keller’s CBBE framework. Aaker (1991) defined brand awareness as the ability of potential consumers to recognize the brand as a member of a specific category and emphasize that awareness and recognition are essential before attaching attributes to the brand. While brand awareness is about the ability to link the brand to a category, brand image is concerned with the associations that an individual makes with the brand. A brand association is anything linked in memory to the brand (Aaker, 1991) and collectively, these brand associations define the brand image (De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1993). Brand associations may include a variety of attributes like perceived quality, brand name and product attributes (Mourad et al., 2010). The independent variables included in this study are inclusive of both the awareness and the image dimensions suggested by Keller (1993) in his CBBE framework.

The independent variables used in this study are the following: M1: Familiarity with a business school brand is measured on a four-point scale with categories like ‘not heard of . . . ’, ‘heard but not explored . . . ’ and likewise. This variable measures the brand awareness attribute as defined in branding literature.

Perceptions and Attitudes: This is considered a core facet across CBBE frameworks, as it has been associated with brand purchase intent and the willingness to pay premiums (Aaker, 1996; Dyson, Farr, & Hollis, 1996; Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993). Perceived quality is viewed as the customer’s judgment of the overall quality, excellence, esteem and brand superiority (with respect to the intended purpose) relative to competitor brands. This is a more abstract attribute and differs from objective quality as it is more akin to an attitudinal assessment of the brand and contributes to the brand image dimension of the brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Zeithaml, 1988). The following measures are used to identify respondent’s perceptions and attitudes toward a business school brand.

M2: The perception of a business school quality is the aggregate measure, estimated by the sum of average perceptions on nine attributes for business schools; calculated on a five-point scale; with measures ranging from 9 to 45 on a consolidated score. The attributes are Placements Quality, Location, Infrastructure, Intellectual Capital, Admission Process Rigor, Pedagogy, Industry Integration, Global Presence and Recognition. Nine attributes are identified for measuring perceived quality through informal group discussions and are based on parameters considered important by the prospective students for selection of a business school. These attributes are further validated through data on business school perception ratings published by Indian magazines (Business Today-Nielsen ratings, 2010; Business World-Synovate B-school survey, 2011). Perceptual maps are drawn for selected business schools to understand the relationship between these attributes, as perceived by students.

M3: Overall brand assessment of a business school is measured on a threepoint scale. Overall brand quality assessment is the perceived brand value of the

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

185

business school (highlighted as symbolic attribute in brand equity measure by Keller in 1993), irrespective of individual attributes, and is determined by the legacy, image and experiences (Byron, 1995; Cheng & Tam, 1997).

M4: Perceived VFM: Perception of business schools on VFM is also measured on a three-point rating scale. Perceived VFM is defined as the customer’s overall assessment of brand utility based on perceptions of what is received vs. what is given (Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993). VFM in this study measures the investment vs. returns ratio for a business school. Students perceive the schools high on VFM if the salaries and non-material benefits obtained after graduating outshine the total fee and investment in education.

M5: Preference: This is a stage of decision-making at which a buyer will select a particular brand and prefer it over a competitor’s brand, availability or access being a non-issue (Dhar & Sherman, 1996). Respondents are asked to rate business schools on the basis of their explicit preference. An 11-point scale is used to calculate the preference scores. Overall preference for a business school is determined by independent variables listed above and the importance given to them by different groups of prospective students.

The dependent variables for brand choice used in this study are the following: M6: Willingness to pay a fee premium: It is defined as the extra amount a consumer is willing to pay for their preferred brand. This is considered as one of the most reasonable summary measures of overall brand equity (Aaker, 1996). This is viewed as a result of managing other CBBE facets like perceived quality, perceived VFM, etc. (Blackston, 1995; Keller 1993). In this study, respondents identified the fee they are willing to pay for a particular business school. This is captured by using a six-point scale, wherein each point represented a certain range of fees for the two-year program. This measure is also a representation of the consumer’s choice and hence their willingness to pay extra money (pay a premium) to experience the brand.

M7: Another measure of choice included in this study is the likelihood of joining a business school if the student gets admitted to a particular institution.

In this measure, all IIMs are included to see the variation in choice due to established brands. Respondents are asked to mention the likelihood of joining the school on a 0 – 100-point scale, similar to the one used in this context by Aaker and Keller (1990).

The dependent variables used as an indicator of behavioral outcomes are willingness to pay a fee premium and the intended choice of respondents which are in accordance with the literature that perceived quality and perceived VFM affect the willingness to pay a price premium and the final brand purchase (Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993; Sethuraman & Cole, 1997). The results are further validated using rankings of select business schools published by Indian business magazines. The choice intention and willingness to pay a fee premium are captured in this research and average objective ranking is calculated using data published in ranking magazines of the year 2011. This

186

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

ranking is based on the objective data given by various business schools on defined parameters (including the attributes used for variable M2).

Brand loyalty is excluded as a measure as it is treated as an outcome of brand equity rather than one of its dimensions. Especially in the business school scenario, brand loyalty will translate into behaviors like referral, donations and enrolling for executive education programs rather than repeated purchase of the same service offer repeatedly (Mourad et al., 2010). Brand loyalty therefore is not included in the assessment of brand equity in this paper.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Study framework Figure 1 captures the conceptual model used in the study for the estimation of a business school’s brand equity with prospective students as stakeholders and hence its implications on their behavior. Prior literature suggests that customized CBBE measures have been used and frameworks have been developed to identify the facets that predict the willingness to pay a premium and the brand purchase behavior (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Mourad et al., 2010).

Abundance of literature also suggests that aggregate perceived quality and perceived VFM are correlated exogenous constructs and directly influence consumers’ willingness to pay the price premium (Blackston, 1995; Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993; Netemeyer et al., 2004). Monroe’s (1990) study (as cited in Mourad et al., 2010) offers a model that posits the willingness to pay a particular price for the brand as a function of the total perceived value and the quality of the brand. Also the willingness to pay a premium is theorized as a primary indicator of brand purchase (Aaker, 1996; Blackston, 1995; Dyson et al., 1996; Netemeyer et al., 2004), which further validates the study framework suggested in this paper.

Figure 1.

The study framework.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

187

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Business school brands chosen The Indian business schools, offering a two-year full-time accredited management program, can be classified into three categories. The top category schools (super league) are IIMs A, B, C and L. These are established schools and strong brands with great aspiration value. They have been consistently ranked among the top five business schools in India. These schools were not included in our study to eliminate obvious bias because of their strong brand legacy and brand value built over many years.

The second category is ‘A’ league schools, which include newer IIMs like Indore and Kozhikode and other private and public schools. These schools are rated among the top 20 schools by almost all ranking magazines and hence are aspirational for students who cannot make it to the top 4 mentioned schools. This list also includes certain regional schools, preferred by students from the neighboring areas, which are more known in a particular region.

The business schools chosen for this study are from ‘A’ league but are necessarily the national schools, which are known across India and attract students countrywide. It is believed that these schools are fairly similar and hence form a good set for measuring brand equity and the relationship of brand equity to certain outcome measures. Given the similarity, respondents are not affected by the ‘halo’ of the better-known schools. This study is confined to a final set of nine schools in the second category ‘A’ league. These are IIM Kozhikode; IIM Indore; XLRI, Jamshedpur; SPJIMR, Mumbai; NITIE, Mumbai; FMS, Delhi; MDI, Gurgaon; IIFT, Delhi; and NMIMS, Mumbai, with details on selected characteristics shown in Table 2.

The respondents – prospective students The study is focused on students aspiring to join business schools in India. The total numbers of students taking the Common Admission Test (CAT) in 2010 are around 206,000 (Business World, 2011). CAT is the biggest entrance exam for students wanting to join top business schools in India. It is conducted and administered by IIMs but the scores are recognized for admissions in other top Indian business schools. Apart from IIMs (as enrolling to CAT is synonymous to applying for IIM admissions) who automatically receive all the applications, the rest of the schools in the sample received between 18,000 and 75,000 applications in the year 2010 (as they require a separate application process). The respondents of this survey have applied to at least one of the schools included in this study and have taken the CAT in 2010. The study is conducted on prospective students as stakeholders and hence the brand equity of business school calculated in this paper represents only that of prospective students as stakeholders. The sampling method used for the survey is stratified random sampling; 394 respondents were selected for the study based on parameters including location, the coaching center they enrolled

188

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Summary of ‘A league’ Indian business schools included for the purpose of study.

Name of the school

Location

Year of establishment

Institute affiliation

No. of students in two-year full-time program∗

Fee for two-year program in INR (000s)∗

319

1000

320

1200

180

870

IIMK – Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode

Kozhikode, Kerala

1996

IIMI – Indian Institute of Management, Indore

Indore, Madhya Pradesh

1996

SPJIMR – S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research MDI – Management Development Institute XLRI – Xaviers Labour Relations Institute FMS – Faculty of Management Studies NITIE – National Institute of Industrial Engineering IIFT – Indian Institute of Foreign Trade NMIMS – Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies

Mumbai, Maharashtra

1981

Autonomous institute founded by Government of India in collaboration with Government of Kerala Autonomous institute founded by Government of India in collaboration with Government of Madhya Pradesh Private autonomous under BVB trust

Delhi NCR

1973

Private autonomous institute

240

1025

Jamshedpur, Jharkhand Delhi

1949

Private autonomous institute

240

1200

1958

Delhi University

226

25

Mumbai, Maharashtra Delhi

1963

Private autonomous institute

290

430

1963

115

1000

Mumbai, Maharashtra

1981

Deemed University – set up by Government of India Deemed University

180

1500

Note: ∗ Data as per February 2011.

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Table 2.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

189

into for the entrance test preparation, work experience and gender; 227 prospective students, who took the CAT in 2010, participated in the study. The majority of the data collection was done in Mumbai and Delhi (India). The average age of respondents was 23 years and 31% were females. The average work experience of the respondents was 1.73 years.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Data collection Data were collected using a self-administered survey method, with questions on attributes and variables mentioned above in the study framework. The instrument was pretested to ensure clear understanding of the questions and response categories; and administered with both individual students and groups either at their homes or at coaching institutions (which prepare the graduates for management entrance examinations).

Results Individual brand results The average scores for the nine B-school brands are shown in Table 3. Among the nine business school brands, XLRI has the highest scores on six out of seven variables and is second on the M7 – choice intention (probability to join).

SPJIMR scores highest on M7, probably because respondents were concentrated in the Mumbai region (where SPJIMR is a leading school). NMIMS scored lowest on almost all variables but one. There are no major contradictions seen in the data.

Excel-based software, Marketing Engineering for Excel (MEXL), is used to develop a perception map for the business schools on the above-mentioned nine attributes. The map in Figure 2 shows that dimension 1, which is the aggregate of all variables except location, accounts for 84.6% variance in the data.

Respondents perceive the attributes of pedagogy, admission and industry interaction as highly congruent. All other variables including globalization, intellectual capital and program recognition are also closely related. Location, which primarily represents the second dimension, constitutes 11.9% variance. The congruency between all parameters except infrastructure and location in the map shows that these are considered jointly by prospective students to assess the business school quality. This is consistent with the literature that all provider attributes, except location and size, are signiďŹ cant in building brand perceptions (Mourad et al., 2010). The red circles represent the placement of nine business school brands on the perception map. XLRI appears to be the most preferred institute on all attributes. SPJIMR is the most preferred on location. On globalization and foreign integration, SPJIMR scores higher, possibly due to the presence of its international campuses. NMIMS comes as the least preferred institute on these variables according to data. Also IIMK and IIMI are not differentiated and their perception on stated attributes is very similar. Table 3

Range IIMI IIMK SPJIMR MDI XLRI FMS NITIE IIFT NMIMS

Individual business school brand results and preference shares.

Familiarity, M1

Aggregate perception of quality, M2

Overall brand assessment, M3

VFM, M4

Preference, M5

Fee premium, M6

Choice intention, M7

Preference shares recovered by MEXL model (in %)

1–4 3.07 3.04 3.6 2.7 3.3 3.24 2.46 2.75 2.58

9–45 34.81 34.77 38.12 33.93 38.42 37.04 32.97 34.14 30.68

1 –3 2.76 2.75 2.94 2.5 2.96 2.86 2.29 2.44 2.02

1–3 2.64 2.65 2.8 2.35 2.84 2.92 2.44 2.42 1.99

0– 10 9.12 8.73 9.27 7.81 9.55 8.99 6.65 7.31 6.44

1–6 4.24 3.99 3.91 3.45 4.29 3.53 2.8 3.08 2.66

0– 10 5.08 5.05 7.67 3.78 6.51 5.79 2.86 3.3 3.09

% 10.19 10.39 11.82 8.89 24.02 10.98 7.96 8.76 6.97

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

190

Table 3.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

Figure 2.

191

Perception map of business school on select nine attributes.

shows the percentage of preference shares for various business schools as recovered by the MEXL software model. The highest concentration of ideal preference points is near XLRI, SPJIMR and FMS, which depicts that more respondents preferring these institutions over IIM Indore and IIM Kozhikode.

Perception of business school brands on identiďŹ ed independent variables: the positioning map using MEXL is drawn for business schools for four independent variables, M1 through M4, is given in Figure 3. Dimension 1 explains 86.6% variance in the data. The aggregate perception of business school quality (M2) and overall brand assessment (M3) are highly congruent, signifying that the perception of individual attributes for business school performance contributes to the perception of the overall brand image, as suggested by the literature which suggests that image-related dimensions and product/service-related dimensions are generally signiďŹ cant and related in the context of service brands (De Chernatony, 2001). The other two variables are loaded on dimension 1, but familiarity is more loaded on the second dimension, which explains 6.4% of variance. The literature suggests that image-related dimensions were far more important as drivers of brand equity than awareness-related dimensions (De Chernatony, 2001; Lovelock, 1991; Mourad et al. 2010). IIMI and IIMK; and MDI and IIFT are perceived very similar on independent variables.

Though SPJIMR scores high on familiarity, XLRI is the preferred brand on other variables. NMIMS and NITIE are less preferred in this set of data.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

192

Figure 3.

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Positioning map for independent variables M1– M4.

Relationship between variables Consistency of the data is judged using aggregate pair-wise correlations among the seven variables, M1 through M7, for all the schools. The data show that all the measures are highly congruent with each other at 99% confidence levels. All variables show congruency at 95% confidence level with the minimum being 0.753 (for VFM and willingness to pay a premium) and the highest being 0.975 (for overall brand assessment and brand preference). As suggested by Netemeyer et al. (2004), favorable perceived quality, brand preference and perceived VFM are congruent with a greater willingness to pay the price premium for a brand and is also supported by Monroe in 1990 (as cited in Mourad et al., 2010). Dependent variable M5 (preference) is congruent with all independent variables (M1 – M4) and also the two other dependent variables, M6 and M7.

The choice intention (M7) is highly congruent with all input variables; whereas the willingness to pay a premium is congruent with overall brand assessment and preference at 99% confidence limits. Recent evidence supports that differentiators for the brand affect both the preferences and willingness to pay a higher price for the brand (Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994; Kalra & Goodstein, 1998). Aggregate correlation between the seven measures of brand equity used for the suggested framework is estimated and shown in Table 4.

Individual level stepwise regression analysis is separately performed with M5 (preference for business schools), M6 (willingness to pay a fee premium)

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

193

Table 4. Aggregate correlation between measures of brand equity for business schools.

M1

M2

Aggregate quality Correlations Familiarity Perception

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

∗∗

.904 .907∗∗ .828∗∗ .913∗∗ .784∗ .988∗∗

.904∗∗ .948∗∗ .924∗∗ .896∗∗ .766∗ .911∗∗

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

Choice Overall Willingness to intention brand pay fee (probability to assessment VFM Preference premium join) .907∗∗ .948∗∗ .949∗∗ .975∗∗ .895∗∗ .901∗∗

.828∗∗ .924∗∗ .949∗∗ .882∗∗ .753∗ .821∗∗

.913∗∗ .896∗∗ .975∗∗ .882∗∗ .948∗∗ .907∗∗

.784∗ .766∗ .895∗∗ .753∗ .948∗∗ .788∗

.988∗∗ .911∗∗ .901∗∗ .821∗∗ .907∗∗ .788∗

Notes: ∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

and M7 (choice intention) as dependent variables using M1– M4 as the independent variables to study the relationship between them. For the aggregate perception, M2, each business school attribute score is considered against the consolidated score to identify the importance of each attribute in making the final choice. The attributes and variables affecting the dependent variables M5, M6 and M7 are presented in Table 5. The figure in brackets against each variable shows the beta coefficient for the same. The data are significant at 95% confidence limits. It depicts the prime influencers among independent variables on behavioral indicators (dependent variables).

The analysis shows that the perception on overall brand quality assessment plays a critical role in building preference for four of the nine schools in the sample. As suggested by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), the overall affective judgment of a brand is a primary CBBE facet and can be represented as a multiplicative function of various attributes and benefits. The other important attribute is perception of program recognition. The willingness to pay a fee premium and choice intention is influenced by different factors in each case. Familiarity plays an important role in building willingness to pay a fee premium. This is in contrast with the literature suggesting that awareness has no direct impact on the consumer’s assessment of the brand value (Mourad, 2010). In the case of FMS, its program recognition is the only factor influencing all dependent variables. FMS is a business school under Delhi University, which is one of the most respected and the oldest central university in India. Overall, the factors playing the most important role in influencing behavioral variables are overall brand assessment, program recognition, familiarity, VFM, placements and admission rigor.

The above data show the importance of various attributes in choosing a particular business school and hence can be an important source for business schools to identify their differentiating criteria and their unique positioning.

A further analysis of the respondent group (not attempted here) would give

194

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Table 5. Step-wise regression analysis to study relationship between independent variables (M1 – M4) and dependent variables (M5 –M7).

M5

M6

M7

Preference

Willingness to pay fee premium

Choice intention (probability to join)

Intellectual capital (0.218); familiarity (0.177); admission rigor (0.173) Admission rigor (0.228); familiarity (0.245); industry interface (0.172) Placements (0.290); familiarity (0.174) Overall brand assessment (0.253); familiarity (0.258); VFM (0.205) Placement (0.249); familiarity (0.238); infrastructure (0.237) Program recognition (0.322)

Overall brand assessment (0.238); placements (0.224)

VFM (0.261); Infrastructure (0.259); Familiarity (0.189) VFM (0.284); admission rigor (0.283)

Program recognition (0.439)

VFM (0.260); familiarity (0.202)

Overall brand assessment (0.263); familiarity (0.312); infrastructure (0.181)

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

IIMI

Overall brand assessmenta (0.373b); locationa (0.236b) IIMK Overall brand assessment (0.294); placements (0.247) SPJIMR Overall brand assessment (0.203) MDI Overall brand assessment (0.388) XLRI FMS

Placement (0.225)

Program recognition (0.261) NITIE Program recognition (0.237); VFM (0.236) IIFT Program recognition (0.295); VFM (0.213) NMIMS Program recognition (0.320); familiarity (0.205)

Overall brand assessment (0.164); placements (0.204); VFM (0.211) Infrastructure (0.221) VFM (0.306); globalization (0.226) Program recognition (0.244) Program recognition (0.347)

Admission rigor (0.241); program recognition (0.215)

a

Factors that influence and are predictors to mentioned dependent variable (significant at 95% confidence levels).

Each factor is accompanied by their Beta coefficients of prediction mentioned in brackets.

b

additional information on the student profiles preferring these attributes and hence help in assessing the right target for business school.

Calculation of business school brand equity As described in the framework suggested for the study (Figure 1), brand equity score is a summation of the five measures, M1– M5. The aggregate brand equity is in the range of 25– 50. The results are tabulated in Table 6. Ranks of the nine institutions, based on the calculated brand equity scores are compared with ranks obtained from data on behavioral indicators, M6 and M7. A comparison is also made with objective rankings of business schools, published by the media.

The highest brand equity score is for XLRI at 45.81, followed by SPJIMR and FMS. IIMI and IIMK stand at position 4 and 5. The lowest brand equity is for NMIMS. A comparison between brand equity rankings and choice intention

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

195

Table 6. Normalized scores for brand equity measure of business schools.

IIMI IIMK SPJIMR MDI XLRI FMS NITIE IIFT NMIMS

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Familiarity – M1 Quality perception – M2 VFM – M3 Overall brand assessment – M4 Preference – M5 Brand equity score (from study) Brand equity rank (from study) Willingness to pay fee premium – M6 Brand rank (based on M6) Choice intention rank – M7 Magazine rank – secondary sources (based on Table 7)

8.52 8.43 9.11 9.28 8.24 43.58 4 8.18 1 4 4

8.46 8.46 9.14 9.28 7.72 43.06 5 7.93 3 3 2

9.39 8.91 9.50 9.72 7.87 45.39 2 7.86 4 5 3

7.99 8.91 8.85 7.57 8.07 8.37 8.87 8.76 8.28 8.40 8.36 9.61 9.79 8.59 8.54 8.33 9.68 9.29 7.83 8.29 7.65 8.74 8.22 7.48 7.55 40.69 45.81 44.91 39.75 40.86 7 1 3 8 6 7.25 8.17 7.40 6.67 6.97 5 6 6

2 1 1

6 2 7

8 8 5

7 7 8

7.77 7.98 7.46 7.44 7.21 37.87 9 6.59 9 9 9

ranks shows that XLRI and FMS are the most sought-after brands, thereby supporting the literature that brand equity has direct effect on purchase/choice behavior (Aaker, 1991; Keller 1993). Though the brand equity perception of IIMI and IIMK, according to this research, is lower than SPJIMR, they are more preferred to SPJIMR at the final decision stage, which could be the halo effect of the IIM brand name. This is in conformance to the literature suggesting the importance of brand name and legacy in decision-making (Mourad et al., 2010; Saeed & Ehsan, 2010). NITIE and NMIMS are the least preferred in the sample. Hence, the aggregate brand equity measures based on perception variables are quite related to behavioral indicators of choice (Agarwal & Rao, 1996). When the brand equity results are observed in accordance with variable M6 (willingness to pay fee premium); IIMI and XLRI ranks on the top followed by IIMK. The willingness to pay a fee premium for FMS is lower, perhaps because of the reference pricing perception. FMS being the government-owned institution charges the least fee per annum (refer Table 2) and is the most affordable MBA institution in the world. Therefore, with the constant scale being used in the research, the average score for variable M6 was lower for FMS The results are also mapped against the business school rankings done by Indian business magazines. These publications seek data on the said parameters from business schools and a relative grading method is used to arrive at objective rankings. The parameters and the weights given differ across publications resulting in ranking variation. The rankings published in four publications, Business Today, Outlook, The Week and Business India in the year 2011 are taken for measurement purpose. The consolidated rankings and the average rankings as calculated from the data are shown in Table 7.

XLRI is consistently the most preferred institute on behavioral variables and also scores highest in the brand equity score, in line with the literature suggesting that perceived quality, VFM and overall brand image are core

196

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Table 7. Objective media rankings.

IIMI IIMK SPJIMR FMS MDI XLRI IIFT NITIE NMIMS

Business World

The Week

Outlook

Business India

St. dev.

Average ranking (calculated)

7 5 12 16 14 3 17 6 4

10 7 8 16 17 5 10 12 18

8 7 10 5 6 4 9 11 14

15 16 7 11 8 5 13 14 20

3.56 4.92 2.22 5.23 5.12 0.96 3.59 3.40 7.12

10 8.75 9.25 12 11.25 4.25 12.25 10.75 14

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Note: Average ranking calculated with lower ranks signifying high ratings.

Source: Business Today, Outlook, The Week, Business India (2011 rankings).

facets of brand equity measures (Aaker, 1991; Agarwal & Rao, 1996; Keller, 1993; Mourad, 2010; Netemeyer et al., 2004). The IIMs, especially IIM Kozhikode, scores higher in objective rankings perhaps because the lure for the IIM brand name becomes high at the final selection stage (they are in the top 5 across all scores). SPJIMR scores higher than IIMI and IIMK on the brand equity measure but falls at fifth place in the choice intention. In objective rankings it is placed in the third position (between the two IIMs considered in this study). The advantage of the IIM brand for IIMI and IIMK is not visible in the estimation of individual independent variables used in research, but at the time of making a final choice, prospective students may prefer IIMs for its enduring value and brand advantage. The data also reflect that IIMs and FMS have a strong legacy, which works to their advantage to influence choice behavior as suggested in the literature that tradition and history have a positive impact on brand equity while the university’s international reputation has a marginally significant impact (Kim, Kim, & An, 2003).

The ranks obtained from objective magazine rankings match the ranks obtained with this study and analysis. This shows that there is a relationship between the customer-based brand measurement approach and the perceived image of the institution. So if business schools can improve their brand equity, it would influence stakeholder behavior and the brand image of the institution (which is also reflected in rankings). As suggested by Mourad et al.

(2010), the market position (leadership) does not impact brand equity in the same proportions but universities adopt brand management strategies to improve their ranking in the higher education market (Brunzel, 2007).

This paper estimates the relationship between brand equity ranks (estimated from the brand equity scores calculated in this study), magazine ranks (based on Table 8) and the business school ranks based on behavioral variables (M6 and M7) using the rank correlation method. The results show that there is a high correlation between the brand equity ranks and the choice intention ranks (0.85), followed by the rankings based on willingness to pay a fee premium (M6)

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

197

Table 8. Rank correlations between ranks estimated from brand equity scores, magazine rankings, and M6 and M7 score ranking.

Attributes

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Brand equity rank and willingness to pay fee premium rank Willingness to pay fee premium and choice intention ranks Brand equity ranking and choice intentions rank Brand equity ranks and magazine ranks Willingness to pay fee premium and magazine ranks Choice intention and magazine ranks

Rank correlation 0.704 0.769 0.852 0.630 0.778 0.630

and the choice intention (M7). The ranking based on the brand equity scores and the willingness to pay a fee premium is also highly correlated (0.703).

The magazine rankings and the brand equity ranks show the lowest rank correlation of 0.62 (though reflecting high agreement).

The results of this study are consistent with the literature review that product attributes, quality, perceived price value and benefits determine the overall brand equity of a service provider and thus influence the customers’ behavior (Aaker, 1991; Lemon, Rust, & Zeithaml, 2001; Teas & Grapentine, 1996).

Based on this study, researchers propose a framework for measuring business school brand equity as mentioned in Figure 1.

Conclusions and implications This paper presents an analysis of the determinants for brand equity in the case of business schools, which are a high credence service. A modified brand equity framework is suggested based on the Keller (1993) and Lavidge and Steiner (1961) models. The findings suggest that brands have a significant role to play in business school selection. Besides the empirical conclusions, conceptually the paper suggests that business school leaders need to be aware of the variable impact of different attributes on brand equity, according to their importance and perceptions in stakeholders’ minds. The distinctive contribution of this paper is through formulating a framework (Figure 1) for investigating determinants of brand equity of business schools from the prospective students’ perspective, with a specific reference to Indian market. This framework can be extended for analyzing business education from the perspective of several other stakeholders apart from the prospective students; this extension is left for the future research. For those involved in marketing education brands, the paper would serve as a diagnostic tool for assessing and improving the brand value with focused marketing efforts.

Brands are fundamentally about experiences and relationships and therefore they form the main basis of an institution’s connection with stakeholders.

According to the EFMD report (CarringtonCrisp, EFMD, & ABS, 2012), the overall reputation of a business school is important for all audience groups

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

198

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

when determining the VFM and the enrolment decision, almost feeding a virtuous circle with VFM driving reputation.

Well-designed and consistent brand campaigns are essential for the business education marketspace. Product quality and features (tangibles) that generate preferences are traditional marketing communication messages. Recently the focus is on creating and maintaining differentiated positioning through a brand’s unique set of intangibles and hence building a greater brand reputation.

Pre-2009, the Wharton Business School brand did not stand for anything other than a clear recognition that it was the best finance school (functional differentiator). In fall 2009, Dean Thomas Robertson wanted to both clarify the school’s brand and deliver more consistent messaging. After much deliberation, Wharton came up with the new positioning and refreshed its brand with the idea – ‘Knowledge for Action’, based on the belief that Knowledge is the muscle of any business. The branding campaign used multimedia to highlight three strategic initiatives: innovation, social impact and global presence (Shayon, 2012).

Several other US business schools have also taken proactive steps to reposition and differentiate themselves on non-functional attributes and build stronger brand equity. The examples of these include Kellogg School of Management (Think Bravely), Harvard (We educate leaders who make a difference in the world) and Stanford (Change lives. Change Organizations. Change the World).

In India, business schools have been communicating overall brand/institution image (which are built on parity points rather than differentiators) but now there is a need to identify the points of difference and build brand strength on them. This study presents the possibility to explore intangibles as differentiators, rather than functional attributes which today are non-differentiators.

Brand communications are the means of creating, evolving and enhancing a brand’s positioning and are a basis of managing its perceptions in the market.

It is imperative to differentiate the business school and build a strong brand in a cluttered education market with the use of right communication tools. Recognizing that brand equity has an awareness dimension, familiarity to the brand is largely driven by marketing activities including advertising, publicity and word of mouth. Thus, they serve important influencers on the overall brand equity (Mourad et al., 2010). The study suggests that prospective students as stakeholders infer the business school brand on overall brand image, which is also build through ‘word of mouth’. Therefore, the role of public relations and social media becomes critical. A strategic approach to integrated marketing communications through the choice of a right message and the media vehicle is critical to create high brand awareness and preference among stakeholders (e.g. applicants).

For effective brand building, business schools need to align their vision, culture and the image as perceived by customers and identify its intended target audience (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). The detailed profiling of respondents can help in building homogenous subgroups, which can be further used to

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

199

identify the right target group for a business school based on the fit between a school’s positioning and students’ interests.

Finally, it is imperative to constantly audit the business school brand. The brand equity calculation has been primarily the task of commercial brands and higher education and business schools in particular have not made serious efforts to monitor and enhance their brand equity. This study highlights the relevance and importance of customer-based brand equity measures to estimate the overall perception of a business school and hence predict its performance. The framework suggested in this paper can be used to commission similar research among prime stakeholders to assess brand equity and understand perception vis-a`-vis other schools. These data can be further used to analyze the impact on the stakeholder’s behavior and interactions. Brand equity measurement would help facilitate marketing programs to generate more positive consumer perceptions and create a well-recognized brand name that can not only reduce marketing costs and influence potential consumers’ choice but also expand the size and loyalty of an institution’s stakeholder base.

The challenges of building an education brand are compounded by ranking methodologies, which make an institution’s value proposition blatant, though not necessarily accurate (Harsha & Shah, 2011). A similar analysis, as suggested in this paper, can be used by business schools to improve their performance on the other factors identified in this study and hence, improve their position rankings. The relevance of such a study holds true across the globe as it is a value input for creating right differentiation and hence preference for the business school vis-a`-vis competition.

Limitations and future research This study is not without limitations, and some are described below: first, the study is primarily concentrated in two metro areas of India – Delhi and Mumbai – hence the bias for certain schools could be a possibility in data collection. A large representative sample from across the country can give a better estimate of business school brand equity. Second, the behavioral indicators used in the study are choice intentions highlighted by the respondents (ideal or desired choice), which could be different from the actual choice made. A longitudinal study with data on the actual school chosen would give a much better estimate of brand equity measure and performance. Finally, this research can be further extended to include a detailed respondent profiling (age, income, education, location, experience, gender, etc.) to identify the differences among groups of applicants and hence segment the population. This additional analysis may indicate how a business school can reach out to selected subgroups and strengthen the study by understanding the impact of certain consumer attributes on brand equity.

Administrators may consider commissioning research on the effects on the outcome measures after the school changes its equity among prospective

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

200

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

students (considering the costs involved as well). This ‘what-if’ analysis can be valuable in estimating the returns on their marketing investments.

Though the essence of a great brand necessarily lies in its product quality and service experience, the business school must emphasize on creating value and building strong and well-differentiated brands that can influence the consumers’ decision-making. The branding of a business school is important to generate not just the mindspace but loyalty and association with stakeholders. This study of brand equity evaluation is thus a first step in the journey of building business school brands. Similar studies can be done for other stakeholders namely industry, faculty, alumni and current students, and then it would be possible to compare the brand equity across the groups.

It is the intent of the researchers to repeat this study in a few years to see how external and internal changes in the business schools are reflected in these measures.

References Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing the value of brand name. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27 – 41.

Agarwal, M. K., & Rao, V. R. (1996). An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity. Marketing Letters, 7(3), 237 –247.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ambler, T. (2000). Marketing and the bottom line. London: Pearson Education.

Baker, C., Nancarrow, C., & Tinson, J. (2005). The mind versus market share guide to brand equity. International Journal of Market Research, 47(5), 523– 540.

Barwise, P. (1993). Brand equity: Snark or boojum? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 93 – 104. Retrieved from http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy? uri¼/01678116/v10i0001/93_besob.xml Bisoux, T. (2010, July/August). Brand and deliver. Bized, AACSB Publication, 48 –51.

Blackston, M. (1995, July/August). The qualitative dimension of brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 2 – 7. Retrieved from http://www.warc.com/fulltext/JAR/6212.htm Brunzel, D. L. (2007). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 16(2), 152– 153.

Business India. (2011, November). The Q-factor: BI’s B-School special, p. 94.

Business Today. (2009, October). The IIM caste system. Retrieved from http://businesstoday. intoday.in/story/the-iim-caste-system/1/4731.html Business Today. (2010, October). The top 10 business schools, pp. 39 – 50.

Business World. (2011, June). India’s best B-Schools 2011, pp. 60 –61.

Byron, S. (1995). Brand equity and market-based assets of professional services firms. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 13(1), 3 – 7. Retrieved from http://byronsharp.files. wordpress.com/2008/03/marketbasedassets1.pdf Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: Dependence of irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 339– 350. Retrieved from http://www.bm.ust.hk/ mark322/Meaningful%20brand.pdf CarringtonCrisp, EFMD, & ABS. (2012). The business of branding 2012. A. Crisp, S. Hardcastle, & L. Brown. Retrieved from http://www.carringtoncrisp.com/images/PDFs/ Bus_of_Brand_Exec_Summary_2012_%28PDF%29.pdf

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

201

Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 23 –32. Retrieved from http://eprints. bournemouth.ac.uk/18867/3/Published_2006_JONVSM_Brand_Barriers_Paper.pdf Chen, L.-H. (2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing of Higher Education, 18(1), 1– 33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/08841240802100113 Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multimodels of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22– 31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09684889710156558 Christodoulides, G., & De Chernatony, L. (2009). Consumer based brand equity conceptualization and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1), 43– 66. Retrieved from http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/17462/1/Consumer_based_brand_ equity_conceptualizations_and_measurement.pdf De Chernatony, L. (2001). From brand vision to brand evaluation: Strategically building and sustaining brands. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Dhar, R., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). The effect of common and unique features in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 193 –203. Retrieved from http://faculty. som.yale.edu/ravidhar/documents/TheEffectofCommonandUniquefeaturesinConsumerCho ice.pdf Dubin, J. A. (1998). The demand for branded and unbranded products: An econometric method for valuing intangible assets. Studies in consumer demand: Econometric methods applied to market data (Chapter 4, pp. 77– 127). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Dyson, P., Farr, A., & Hollis, N. S. (1996). Measuring and using brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 9 – 21. Retrieved from http://www.sba.pdx.edu/faculty/ahutinel/ Read/10.pdf Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1, 24 –33.

Friga, P., Bettis, R., & Sullivan, R. (2003). Changes in graduate management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 233– 249.

Harsha, P. P., & Shah, S. (2011). Creating brand value of higher education institution. IJMT, 19(2), 152– 158.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned to your corporate brand?

Harvard Business Review, 79, 128 –134.

Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. C. (1998). The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer price sensitivity. Journal of Market Research, 35, 210 – 224. Retrieved from http:// www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/Publications/JournalofMarketingResearch% 28JMR%29/1998/35/2/612172.pdf Kartono, B., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Brand equity measurement: A comparative review and a normative guide (Johnson School Research Paper Series, 24-09). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network Electronic paper collection http://ssrn.com/abstract¼1401149 Keever, S. (1998). Building your image on campus. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 58(2), 42 – 46.

Keller, K. (2001). Building customer based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands.

Marketing Management, 10(2), 14– 19. Retrieved from http://mktg.uni-svishtov.bg/ivm/ resources/CustomerBasedbrandEquityModel.pdf Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57, 1– 22. Retrieved from http://www.iseg.utl.pt/aula/cad1849/ conceptualizing_measuring_managing_cbbe.pdf Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity (Marketing Science Institute Relevant Knowledge Series Report No. 02-60). Retrieved from http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/weitz/ mar7786/Articles/Keller%202002.pdf Kim, H., Kim, W., & An, A. (2003). The effect of consumer based brand equity on firms’ financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 335– 351. Retrieved from http:// www.iseg.utl.pt/aula/cad1849/effect_cbbe_firms_fin_perform.pdf Kirmani, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). Advertising, perceived quality and brand image. In D. A. Aaker & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising (pp. 143 – 161). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

202

A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.).

New York, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kumar, S., & Dash, M. K. (2011, January). Management education in India: Trends, issues and implications. Research Journal of International Studies, 18, 15– 25. Retrieved from http:// www.eurojournals.com/RJIS_18_02.pdf Kurz, K., Scannell, J., & Veeder, S. (2008). Willingness to pay: Making the best case for institutional value and return on investment. University Business, 11(5), 31– 32.

Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurement of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, 59 – 62.

Lemon, K. N., Rust, R. T., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2001). What drives consumer equity? Marketing Management, 10(1), 20– 25.

Lovelock, C. (1991). Services marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mackay, M. M. (2001). Evaluation of brand equity measures: Further empirical results. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(1), 38– 51.

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2008). The Global market for higher education: Sustainable and competitive strategies for the new millennium. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

McGuire, W. J. (1972). Attitude change: The information processing paradigm. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 108– 141). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Mourad, M. (2010). Internationalization: A new positioning strategy in higher education market.

International Journal of Management in Education, 4(2), 185 –200. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1504/IJMIE.2010.030875 Mourad, M., Ennew, C., & Kortam, W. (2010). Brand equity in higher education. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(4), 403 – 420. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight. com/promo/pdf/global/brand_equity_in_higher.pdf Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., . . . Wirth, F. (2004).

Developing and validating measures of facets of customer based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57, 209– 224.

Outlook. (2011, September). India’s best business schools: Outlook-MDRA rankings, 36– 37.

Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2006). Branding options for distance learning programs: Managing the event of university image. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(8), 45 –54.

Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, P. J. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486– 505.

Parameswaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. (1995). University image: An information processing perspective. Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41 –56.

Philip, J. (2008). Management education in India. Proceedings from XIII International Study & Practical Conference – Competitiveness in Information Society: BRICS-countries Experience, State University of Management, Moscow, Russia.

Saeed, M. K., & Ehsan, U. (2010). Exploring the most important factors while branding the business schools. Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 6(1), 36 –43.

Segev, E., Raveh, A., & Farjoun, M. (1999). Conceptual maps of leading MBA programs in the United States: Core courses, concentration areas and the ranking of the school. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 549– 565.

Sethuraman, R., & Cole, C. (1997). Why do consumers play more for national brands than for store brands? (MSI Working paper No. 97-126). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Sevier, R. A., & Sickler, E. (2004). Is image still everything (Stamats White Paper 14). Retrieved from www.stamats.com/resources/whitepapers/pdf/whitepaper14.pdf Shah, A. (2012, September). India’s business schools get tough lesson in supply and demand.

Reuters. Retrieved from http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/india-education-mbabusiness-schools-idINDEE88900W20120910 Shayon, S. (2012, April 24). Wharton brand refresh isn’t just academic. Brand Channel.

Retrieved from http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Wharton-Rebrand-042412.aspx Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science, 12, 28– 52.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

203

Downloaded by [14.97.145.198] at 08:37 20 December 2013

Sinha, D. P. (2006). Management education in India: Perspectives and challenges. Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University Press. ISBN: 9788178812793.

Sudarshan, K. (2011). Input quality matters – Brand IIM. Indian Management, 50(5), 78 –82.

Teas, K., & Grapentine, T. (1996). Demystifying brand equity. Marketing Research, 8(2), 24–30.

The Week. (2011, November). Best B schools: The Week-MaRS national survey, p. 55.

Topor, B. (2005). Branding higher education. Marketing Higher Education Newsletter, XV(2), 15– 18.

Yavas, U., & Shemwell, D. J. (1996). Graphical representation of university image: A correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 7(2), 75 – 84.

Yesodharan, D. (2004, January 7). Is the IIM brand losing sheen? Economic Times, p. 7.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2– 22.