Marketing Mix and the Brand Reputation of Nokia

Market Forces April 2008 Vol. 4 No. marketING MIX & smear RESEARCH MARKETING MIX AND THE snitch REPUTATION OF NOKIA SYED EHTESHAM ALI College of Management Sciences PAF-Karachi ground of Economics and Technology E-mail emailprotected com Abstract Pakistans prompt anticipate market is growing very fast. The most selling tag in the market is Nokia. A conjecture was developed that the character of a disgrace is a source of demand and the competitoryly superior feeling dickens-bagger justifies a grant harm.In this survey we assessed the reasons for preference of this stigmatise establish on established parameters of marketing fuse (the 4 Ps). The objective of this nurture was to measure the extent of preference of these parameters. For this purpose a headernaire was developed and administered to 240 respondents. The leap hypothesis that at least unitary of the predictor proteans would dupe a unidimensional human relationship with the parasitical protean filt h report was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that nigh 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is signifi tin providetly moderate.Among all the autonomous variables the slope for the merchandise prize and procession ( advert & communication) were heightser than the rest. turnaround coefficients for yield quality and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 singlely. This implicates that an summation in genius rate (on the eggshell of five to one) of intersection point quality and promotion (advertising & communication) would cause shit character to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. 1. 0. 0 nonsubjective The objective of this report card was to measure how elements of marketing mix and their relationship expunge the denounce reputation of Nokia mobile cry.Though the marketing mix creation such as point of intersection, toll, can and promotion atomic number 18 v ery burning(prenominal) in analyzing the marketing strategy, the scope of the study was mainly MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 15 MARKETING MIX & station RESEARCH nidused on one aspect of commemorate honor i. e. crack reputation, the ultimate reflection of the jog blend of all marketing mix. 1. 1. 0 LITERATURE pot 1. 1. 0 label imperfectioning has an antediluvian patriarch history. It could be traced back to the quantifys when the ancient Egypt brick makers used to stamped symbols on the bricks for identification and distinction purposes (Farghuhar 1990).Nilson (1998) on the other blow over instal that ancient farmers used to put symbols on the cattle with the suspensor of hot iron, which meant burning. The word put up has been derived from the Scandinavian word branna that means to burn. In Swedish language the word patsy, means fire. Thus when a producer put some marks or symbols on their harvest-feast it will come in the category of denounceing (Nilson 1998). One of t he advantages of sacrosanct soft touch name is that its helps in penetrating in a cutting market or a new market category. Globalization has created wonderful make aw be mantle and this aw beness is not dependent on the availableness of the products. Czinkota & Ronkainen 2001). For example in Pakistan, markers such as such as McDonald, pizza pie Hut and KFC had very significant aw atomic number 18ness even before they subject their franchises in Pakistan. 1. 2. 0 target Equity denounce faithfulness is a relationship between customers and filths resulting in a good to be recognise at a future date (Wood 2000). Kotler and Armstrong (1996) were of the sound judgement that measurement mark off equity is a tedious job. Neverthe little a powerful print means superior shop equity that helps in achieving higher send loyalty, name awareness, comprehend quality, and strong tick off associations.Some of the major benefits of nock equity are shit awareness and consumer loyalty which helps in cut marketing costs. score is an important equity therefore, it should be carefully bear on by adopting strategies that would help in representing or improving brand awareness, graspd brand quality and arrogant associations. (Kotler & Armstrong 1996) Ambler and Styles (1997) are of the opinion that brand equity could be measured from two perspectives. One is financial paygrade approach and the other is consumer- base approach.The financial evaluation approach is colligate to the monetary care for of the brand, and the consumer-based approach focuses on the brand itself that is how much value the consumers give to the brand. Brand equity is also submited as an accumulated profit that could be realized at a future date. The brand equity concept can also cause confusion, because of troublesomey in bill it (Ambler & Styles 1997). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 16 MARKETING MIX & mark RESEARCH richness of brand equity demands aim for more practical experi ence and relative research to judge and validate the usefulness of brand evaluation methods (Farquhar 1990).The upstart merger and acquisition trend has also increased the importance of measuring brand equity (Tauber 1988). The role of brands is now far beyond product specialization or competing for market share. They are accumulated annuities which the firm can acquire from its balance sheet (Tauber 1998). Firms could yield a strong competitive edge over competitors if they could create brand equity through make awareness, impression, and linking associations (Keller 1998). A stronger brand would always have a better taste of needs, wants, and preferences of consumers than the brands that are not competitive.Thus stronger brands would help in creating effective marketing programs that could go beyond consumer expectations. (Keller 1998). Brand equity since last one tenner has remained popular for attracting new market segments (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). This phenomenon of bra nd equity has coincided with the newly emerged barely equally popular phenomenon of brand consultation (Ambler & Styles 1997). Research shows a two way relationship between brand equity and extension. A brands equity could influence the success of extensions, and extensions could positively influence brands equity.The result is that extremely cute brand extensions are more in(predicate). Consumers tend to necessitate those brands that have strong brand equity. This creates strong brand loyalty, and would make it difficult for the customers to switch to the competitors. Brand position of a firm is strongly dependent on the positive image of brands. Strong brands are a major source of differentiation and extending the very(prenominal) towards a specialized product category is easier. Successful brand allows firms to demand high footings and are a source of barrier which makes it difficult for consumers to switch to other brands (Pitta & Katsanis 1995. 1. 3. 0 bell ringer RE PUTATION According to Aaker (1991, 1996) and Kapferer (1997) some(prenominal) companies and consumers are watchful over the brand reputation of what they sell or buy. Every brand represents distinct values, creates a distinct profile in the minds of the customers in respect to what it stands for. For example in beverage industry Coca-cola stands for reinvigorated and in car industry Volvo brand is perceived for safety and whiff. Similarly in the mobile industry Sony Ericsson is poised as melody and entertainment etc.Globalization and advanced technology have make the market more competitive, thus firms, now, are more brand sensitive. They have observed that the consumer preferences have become homogenous because of globalization and the spread of technology. Thus, both the sellers MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 17 MARKETING MIX & score RESEARCH and buyers are paying attention to the brand reputation in wrong of what they are buying and selling. A consumer during his lifetime undergo es a series of ever ever-changing circumstances and situations. As a result his brand preference shifts with his changing needs.The brand attributes or features must fit to consumers need to maintain an on-going permanent relationship with the brand. The consumers need to have a trust in their preferred brands for continued offering of the desired benefits. According to Browne (1998), if companies break off to ensure a trustworthy, stable brand reputation, the brands emersion and market share will be affected. Thus a brand reputation is the image of superior quality and added value, which justify a premium price. A reputable brand is a strong asset, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and perceptual constancy for future sales (Kapferer 1997).Ultimate goals of super reputed brands should be to strengthen their image. Low selling brands with low reputation should focus on tailoring their marketing mix and fixing the overall image problem (Baldinger & Rubinson 1996). Fir ms dealing with mobile handset are also concerned with the reputation of their brands, and how this would affect their international market share. Competition among the mobile companies has coerce them to create a brand reputation in customers minds. The mobile forebode industry is comprised of mostly multinationals and has financial advantages in their cost structure.This advantage is not available to their purely domestic counterparts (Kapferer, 1997). Brand reputation in the mobile tele call in industry is becoming crucial for consumers purchasing looks. Temporal and leeward (2001) argue that powerful brands are the ones that are built on reputation and this will not change, but would gain more importance in the future. Up Shaw (1995), agrees and claims that branding is the art of trust creation and therefore it is imperative for companies to build a reputable identicalness in order to maintain trust with their consumers.A highly reputed brand name is considered as a favora ble and publicly recognized name that reflects merit, achievement, and reliability. According to Paul and commode (1997), the attribute reputation is an estimation of the consistency, over a period of time for an entity. This estimation is based on the entitys willingness and ability to perform an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion and an attribute is some circumstantial part of the entity price, quality, promotion, distribution and other marketing skills. A brand is a relationship between reputation and promise. Moreover, reputation is a set of expectations.A brand is a combination of tangible and intangible attributes, symbolized in a trademark. If properly managed, brand creates influences and generates value. Temporal and Lee (2000) also define the brand MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 18 MARKETING MIX & blot RESEARCH as a promise to the consumer of what the product, service, or company stands for, and for the kind of experience they can get from it. If the promise is deliver ed, customers will be satisfied and this will alimentation them coming back to a companys product. Kotler (1999) defines three acquit advantages, which brands offer to the consumers.Firstly, brands inform the consumer about the product quality. Buyers, who consistently purchase the same brand, are aware that they will get the same quality each time they purchase the product. Secondly, brand names simplify shopping for consumers, by enhancing their ability to find the products that match their wants and needs, as opposed to generic branding. Lastly, brand names allow consumers attention to be drawn to new products that are beneficial to them, since the brand is the first form of recognition. To become successful and and so profitable, brands must develop a positive reputation.A reputable brand is strong assets, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and thus forms stability of future sales. (Rogerson 1983). Brand reputation involves a continuum ranging from an uncertain feel ing that the brand is recognized at the market place, to a belief that it is the number one in the product class by customer (Aaker 1991). This continuum can be represented by different degree of brand reputation cognize on the market. The brand reputation can be good or bad, strong or weak. It crystallizes how people feel about the reputation based on whatever information they have about the brand.Some companies have not built any brand at all. We can verbalize for the unknown brand that, for it, no reputation exists and it does not affect consumer-buying behavior on the market. 1. 2. 0 MARKETING MIX. 1. 2. 1 PRODUCT (Quality) (Quality) crossroad quality is an important determinant for the customers for choosing a brand that helps in the maturement of brand reputation. Quality belongs to the product perspective of a brands identity whereas perceived quality is how a brands quality is seen by the consumers. It is one of the key ratios in Aakers brand equity model.A higher price is a sign of high quality to the consumers. perceive quality is a source of consumer satisfaction it makes them to repurchase the product, which leads to loyalty. (Uggla 2001). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 19 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 1. 2. 2 PRICE (Affordability) (Affordability) harm influences the brand choice in two ways (1) Seek the last-place price to avoid financial risk or (2) Seeks the higher price to gain product quality (Macdonald & Sharp 2000). For some consumers, the price is indispensable particularly when they are purchasing everyday products.Some consumer may choose a brand just because it has the lowest price, while other consumers may choose a brand just because it has the highest perceived price inferring that it is of high quality. 1. 2. 3 PROMOTION (Advertising & Communication) Communication) How can a company build its brand reputation through promotion? A promotion that provides incentives to try a new flavor or new use will be more effective if the bra nd is familiar and there is no need to combat a consumer skeptical of brand reputation (Pringle & Thompson 1999). Advertising acts as a major tool to enhance brand reputation.The purpose of advertising is to make the consumers to purchase their brands. Advertising is one of the most visible forms of communication. It creates a set of associations the consumers want to have about a brand. If advertising, promotion and box support a constant positioning strategy over time, the brand is likely to be strong (Aaker 1991). 1. 2. 4 PLACE (Availability) Firms rarely utilisation alone in creating value for customers and building positive brand reputation. congruity of supply and availability at convenient locations are vital for brand reputation.Any disagreement between marketing channel members on goals and roles may create channel conflict, which eventually could hamper overall reputation of the specific brand (Kotler, 2006). Reputation is a historical notion based on the sum of the pas t behaviors. It is prone to change over time and is a function of time. 2. 0. 0 RESEARCH QUESTION The following research question has been formed in the light of the literature review. How do the mobile phone buyers perceive the brand reputation of Nokia in legal injury of marketing mix? 3. 0. 0 METHODOLOGY MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 20 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH found on the literature survey and the above-identified single-handed and dependent variables, a close-ended questionnaire was developed. Questionnaire was based on a total of 14 questions 7 were related to personal data and the rest were related to the subject study that is measuring brand reputation in hurt of marketing mix. The attempt size for the study was 240 and it was chosen non-randomly and was personally administered by my students. The analysis was comprehensive of the measures of central tendencies and the measure of spreading. The hypothesis was tested through multiple regressions. 4. SURVEY FINDINGS 4 . 1 MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCIES & DISPERSION The respondents opinions on the determinants of marketing mix and brand reputation were obtained. The determinants for marketing mix were product (quality), price (affordability), promotion (advertising and communication) and place (availability). The determinants for brand reputation were favorability, public recognition, reliability and consistency. The summarized results related to the measures of the central tendencies and dispersion are presented beneath Table Number One Measure of central Tendencies Product (Quality) Mean St.Error Median Mode St. Dev. S. Var. Kurtosis Skew ness Range Minimum Maximum Sum Count 4. 74 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 13 0. 19 -0. 77 -0. 98 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1138 240 Price (Affordability) 3. 82 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 0. 81 0. 18 -0. 39 0. 08 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1144 240 onward motion (Adv. & Communication) 4. 45 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 08 0. 29 -0. 18 -0. 82 2. 00 3. 00 5. 00 1107 240 calculate (Availability) 4. 02 0. 03 4. 00 4. 00 1. 04 0. 23 1. 23 -0. 74 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1017 240 Brand Reputation 4. 89 0. 05 5. 00 5. 00 1. 16 0. 49 3. 69 -1. 09 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1117 240MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 21 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH M ark e ting M ix to wit Brand Re putation 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Product Price Promotion Place Brand Reputatioon 4. 74 3. 82 4. 45 4. 89 4. 02 The respondents opinions on dependent variable brand reputation was the highest with a mean of 4. 89, whereas the rating on product (quality) ranked second with a mean of 4. 79 and the price (affordability) was the lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The well-worn deviation of respondents opinion on independent dimensions price (affordability) was the least (0. 1) as compare to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization and difference in the respondents opinion on the dimension price (affordability). The standard deviation of respondents opinion on dimension product (quality) was the highest i. e1. 13 as compared t o the other dimensions. This indicates that there is a high polarization of respondents opinions on the product (quality) dimension. Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation was negative further price (affordability) with the value of 0. 08.The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. 4. 2. 0 BRAND REPUTATION The respondents opinions were obtained in ground of favorability, recognizably, reliability, and consistency. The summarized results are presented below add-in NUMBER-2 REPUTATION OF NOKIA closely favorable Most Publicity Most time-tested Most Consistent MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 22 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Recognized 4. 01 4 3. 1 RESEARCH 3. 63 4. 5 4 3. 5 3 2. 5 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 4. 01 4 3. 1 3. 63 Most f avorableMost Publicity Recognized MostReliable Most Consisten The level of favorability and recognize ability of Nokia br and was the highest with a mean of 4. 04 and 4. 0. The perception on the consistency and reliability were found to be on the lower side with a mean of 3. 1 and 3. 63 respectively. 4. 1. 2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING Literature survey suggests that, buyers perceive or build brand reputation of mobile phones in monetary value of (1) product (quality), (2) price (affordability), (3) promotion (adv. & communication) and (4) place (availability). Based on the hypothetic framework, the following hypotheses were developed.H1o Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that no linear relationship exists between Nokias dependent variable brand reputation and independent variables such as product, price, promotion, and place. H1A At least one of the predictor variables has a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation. statistical REPRESENTATION The statistical representation of the above hypothesis is presented below. H1O ? 1= ? 2= ? 3= ? 4=0 H1A ? 1? ?2? ?3? ?4? 0 The above hypoth esis was tested through multiple regressions for brand NOKIA and the summarized results are presented below. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 23MARKETING MIX & BRAND sidestep NUMBER-2 MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square modify R Sqr. Standard Error Observations RESEARCH 0. 69 0. 53 0. 52 0. 44 240. 00 Df Regression Residual Total 4. 00 234. 00 240. 00 Coefficients Intercept Product(quality) Price(affordability) Promotion(Adv. & Comm. ) Place(Availability) 0. 72 0. 95 0. 27 0. 85 0. 34 SS 12. 01 13. 05 25. 06 Std. Error 0. 49 0. 09 0. 03 0. 03 0. 02 MS 3. 00 0. 06 F 53. 82 Significance F 0. 00 t Stat 1. 48 2. 61 7. 57 6. 83 7. 41 Pvalue 0. 14 0. 02 0. 00 0. 01 0. 00 Lower 95% -0. 24 0. 06 0. 16 0. 15 0. 13 Upper 95% 1. 68 0. 42 0. 27 0. 27 0. 22 R? or the brand NOKIA is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable which is significantly strong. Among all the independent variables the slope for the product and promotion are the highest, this means that as compared to other independent variables, product and promotion of Nokia brand cell phone has stronger relationships with the dependent variable brand reputation. Regression coefficient for product and promotion are 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (adv. communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. The F-value is high and falls in the critical land that means variations of independent variables are unequal this indicates that the results are not biased. provided for the coefficient of product and promotion, no other coefficient is statistically significant. 5. 0 induction CONCLUSION MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 24 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Based on the survey findings the following conclusions have been drawn According to the respondents opinion the rating on de pendent variable brand reputation was highest with the mean of 4. 9, whereas the rating on product (quality) was the second highest with a mean of 4. 79 and the rating on price (affordability) was lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard deviation of respondents opinion on independent dimensions price (affordability) was the least (0. 81) as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization in the respondents opinion on the dimension price (affordability). The standard deviation of respondents opinion on dimension product (quality) was the highest 1. 13. This indicates that there is high polarization of respondents opinion on the product (quality) dimension.Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation were negative except for price (affordability) with the value of 0. 08. The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negat ively skewed. The alternate hypothesis that at least one of the predictor variables would have a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is significantly strong.The slope for products (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were the highest this means that as compared to other independent variables, product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) of the Nokia brand cell phone have stronger relationships with the dependent variable brand reputation. Regression coefficient for product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 5 and 0. 85 rating respectively. ANNEXURE 1 Q1) Age (in years) 15 25 QUESTIONNAIRE (DEMOGRAPHIC DATA) 26 35 36 45 46 above MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 25 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Q2) Qualification ? Matriculation Others -Q3) Gender ? Male Q4) Marital Status ? maven Q5) Profession Marketing Teacher Q6) Income Up to 20,000 above RESEARCH ? middling ?Graduation Masters ?Female Married Banking Engineering Other(s) please nail.. 21,000 30,000 31,000 40,000 Doctor 41,000 and Q7) Please mark the area of your residence Sadder Defence Clifton Gulshan F. B. compass Nazimabad PECHS Other(s) appraise the following statements in terms of your answer (5 being highly agreed and 1 being highly disagreed) MARKETING MIX Q8) gait the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Product i. e quality. 5 4 3 2 1 Q9) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Price i. e. affordability 5 4 3 2 1 Q10) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Promotion i. e. Advertising & Communication. 5 4 3 2 1 Q11) Rate the br and reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Place i. e. Convenience in availability. 5 4 3 2 BRAND REPUTATION Q12) I consider Nokia as most favorable brand in terms of brand reputation. 4 3 2 1 Q13) I consider Nokia as most publicly recognized brand in terms of brand reputation. 5 4 3 2 1 Q14) I consider Nokia as most reliable brand in terms of brand reputation. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 26 1 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 5 4 3 2 1 Q15) I consider Nokia as most consistent brand in terms of brand reputation. 5 4 3 2 1 ANNEXURE 2 REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. , 1991. , Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the nurse of the Brand Name. NewYork The Free press. Aaker, D. A. , 1996. , construct Strong Brands. New York The Free Press. Aaker, D. A, 2004. Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York Free Press.MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 27 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Ambler, T. , & Styles, C. , 1997. Brand development versus new product development toward a process model of extension decisions. journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(4), p. 222-234. Browne, K. , 1999. Nokias Brilliant Branding. Finance week South Africa. Vol. (22), p. 12-26. Baldinger, A & Rubinson, J. , 1996. , Brand Loyalty the Link between billet and Behavior. Journal of Advertising research, Vol. (2), p. 84-97. Czinkota, M. & Ronkainen, M. , 2001. , International Business (6th ed. ). Fort Worth Harcourt College.Farquhar, P. , 1990. Managing brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, August/September) 30, RC 7 RC 12. Keller, K. L. , 2003. strategic brand management, construct Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd Ed. , Upper Sadle River. . Kotler, P, & Armstrong, G. , 1996. Principles of Marketing. (7th ed.. USA learner Hall, Inc. Pringle, H. Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit how cause related marketing builds brands. New York John Wiley & Sons. Jean, N. K, 1997. Strategic Brand Management, Princeton University Press Princeton. Kapferer, J. N. ,1997. Strategic Brand Management. 2nd.LondonHove. Kotle r, P. & Armstrong, G. & Saubers, J. & Wong, V. , 1999. Principles of marketing. 2nd ed. England Prentice Hall press. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L, 2006. Marketing Management 12th ed. Indiana Indiana University Press. Macdonald, E. K. & Sharp, B. M. 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision-making for a common, repeat purchase product A replication Journal of Business Research, Vol. (48), p5-15. Nilson, H. T. , 1998. Competitive Branding-Winning the Marketplace with Value Added Brands. Chichester Wiley,cop. Paul, H. & John, M. , 1997. Pricing Strategy & Practice.Bradford 5(1),p. 25. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 28 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit how cause related marketing builds brands Journal of Marketing, Vol. (21), p. 61-78. Pitta, A. & Katsanis, P. L. 1996. Understanding Brand Equity for Sucessful Brand Extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 12(4),51-64. Rogerson, W. P, 1983. Reputation and Product Quality, The Bell Journal of economics, Vol. (2), p. 508-516. Tauber, E. , 1988. Brand leverage Strategy for growth in a cost- control world. Journal of Advertising Research, ( August/September). 8, 26-30. Temporal, P & Lee, K. C. 2001. Hi-Touch Branding, Creating Brand Power in the Age of technology. Journal of Information & technology, 94(2), p. 67-86. Uggla, H. , 2001. What makes winning brands different The hidden method behind the worlds most successful brands. The journal of marketing, 18(3), p. 24-41. Upshaw, L. B. 1995. .Building Brand Identity A strategy for success in a hostile marketplace. New York John Wiley & Sons, Wood, L. , 2000. Brands and brand equity rendering and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 29