Measuring the effectiveness of the

communication strategy by using Brand

Score Technique - a practitioner Study
Rajesh Srivastava

Rajesh Srivastava is Summary

Professor and Head at Purpose – The purpose of the study is to find the relation between brand score and strategy through
SIMSREE, University of measurement of brand score. Quantitative methods to assess consumer awareness, satisfaction and
Mumbai, Mumbai, India. preferences are the main purposes of the study.
Design/methodology/approach – In the study of brands, 120 respondents participated in
dish-washing category. A survey was conducted to test the brand score and to see if communication
effectiveness impacts the brand score of extensions.
Findings – The report finds that brand score is an indicator of how effective a brand is. Higher brand
equity helps in getting better acceptance in brand extensions of a new market, and the results of brand
scores confirm the same. They should be clearly distinguished between the brand as a whole and its
sub-brands and extensions, so that it may have a differential approach to each sub-brand and
extensions. Our study confirms the usage in brand extension study by applying brand score parameters
as an effective tool for measuring communication strategy. Brand score parameters have been tried
earlier by Srivastava (2004, 2009 and 2013).
Research limitations/implications – This study, conducted across the metro cities, may represent
different cultures. However, it may not represent the Tier 2 and below population, including the rural
population. However, with the penetration of such goods sweeping in to these markets, it will be
interesting to explore if similar strategy clicks with these consumers. The paper is conceptual in nature.
Therefore, this paper lacks in-depth theoretical support because it is conceptual in nature and more of
a practitioner paper.
Practical implications – Application of brand scorecard would be useful for the managers to conduct
analysis of brand mapping score, in reference to brand strategy, versus others. The brand score tools
help in measuring the impact of various market drivers’ measures on ten parameters on the performance
of brands. A study of brand scores of a brand extension of competing brands will give direction to
communication strategy in comparison to competitors. Managers can calculate the brand scores on a
six-monthly or yearly basis to study the impact of their brand strategy to get better insight on the
effectiveness. It can also give new directions on developing brand strategy. Lifebuoy changed their
brand strategy, based on their brand score matrix, from germicidal effect to total protection against
infection among children through handwash usage strategy approach.
Originality/value – Brand score is a new concept because there is a paucity of similar research
(Srivastava, 2013). Brand score analysis and mapping of a brand play a major role in measuring the
performance of brand in the market. This research finding will improve the effectiveness of
communication in marketing. The approach of using the brand score technique for measurement of
strategy is new to brand extension and will give directions and ways to improve the effectiveness.
Application of the brand score in the brand extension is the first approach to give direction on strategy.
Keywords Brand equity, Brand extensions, Brand scores, Brand communication strategy,
Brand measurement
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
Received 24 July 2014
Revised 24 October 2014 In a growing economy, the importance of brands is increasing. A brand represents very
4 November 2015
10 April 2016
important assets (Günter and Kriegbhaum-Kling, 2001). A brand is a mark on a product or
Accepted 22 May 2016 service, tangible or intangible, that serves as identification for its particular manufacturer or

PAGE 26 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016, pp. 26-41, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1368-3047 DOI 10.1108/MBE-07-2014-0025
creator (Srivastava et al., 2013). According to Aaker (1991), understanding of a brand is an
important step in building the brand and equity. Various factors come into play in managing
brand equity and, therefore, its valuation of yearly basis may be difficult and time
consuming.
According to Andrew (2003), there is greater enhancement of gaps between perception
and reality caused because of the promotion of a brand. Good brand equity and increased
market share may have the higher the share of consumer mind (Srivastava et al., 2013).
High mind share means better brand recall in a positive direction under normal condition.
Brand strategy could affect the same. Brand management strategy is used for initiating and
maintaining a continuing dialogue with the customers and for enhancing relationships
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004). There is ample evidence in the literature that suggests that
various marketing communications are based on strategy influence brand equity, including
advertising (Aaker and Biel, 1993; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995, Rajagopalan, 2011),
sponsorship (Cornwell et al., 2001) and various alternative options (Joachimsthaler and
Aaker, 1997). A firm may develop brand scores to enable the firm to measure key
behavioural dynamics associated with the brand and compare with other competing
brands in the market. The benefit of brand scores is that it identifies the posture of the brand
in reference to the strength of the brand in the given market. The brand score would be
helpful in improving, guiding the brand led investment and marketing strategy (Rajagopal,
2007). The brand score, generally, is an increasingly utilized tool for businesses seeking to
move strategy to the action stage. A brand extension in different categories is normally
difficult and may erode the brand equity. A brand with higher brand equity extending in the
new category through brand extensions is an interesting area for study. Brand score
measured on different factors may help in measuring the communication strategy. This
becomes important when there is brand extension in a different category of a brand. Brand
score measured after the brand extension in different category can give the effectiveness
of the brand communication strategy and brand equity. Brands with good brand equity will
inherit the value of brand extensions (Srivastava et al., 2013). This is crucial if the extension
is in different product categories compared to its own present segment.

1.1 Brand score and its role in measurement

Brand score is the score provided by consumers on different parameters of a brand. It
incorporates ranking according to customers on the brand at delivering the benefit
customers truly desire, brand staying relevant to customers, perceived pricing in
customer’s mind, brand portfolio and customer service expectation calculating the brand
score. Image is important because brands are competing in the international arena and,
therefore, it becomes essential to maintain the core essence of the brand across
boundaries (Pappu et al., 2006). Stern et al. (2001) suggests that the image is conceived
of as the outcome of a transaction whereby signals emitted by marketing units received by
a receptor and organized into mental perception. Therefore, perception that consumers
hold about brands referred to collectively because the brand image is an important part of
equity (Diesinker and Romaniuk, 2006). A brand score technique not only covers the
perception but also takes care of perceived benefit, relevance of the brand, pricing
perception and service expectation, etc. Therefore, brand scores could be the key driver
to develop brand strategy and develop better brand equity (Srivastava, 2004).
Brand score is the score provided by consumers on different parameters. Brand score
measurement is used to assess the effectiveness of brand strategy. An effective brand
strategy will lead to brand scores parameters getting higher scores. Brand score is the
score provided by consumers on different parameters. A comparison of two strategies will
reflect in different brand scores for brands. The measurement of brand scores can help in
identifying the weakness of a strategy of a brand when compared to others.
Hence, the key here is to optimize the brand score and convert it in to tangible market
shares. Branding score can help in formulating and determining the impact of the strategy.

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 27

 It is linked to brand equity because higher brand scores can enhance brand equity
(Srivastava, 2004). Good brand equity affects brand scores. Good brand equity affects
brand scores. Several models such as Keller’s CBBE (Keller, 2003), Aaker’s brand Equity
measurement tool (Aaker, 1991; Inter-brand, 2014) and Brand Strength (Young & Rubicam,
BAV Y&R) are there to measure the brand equity, but brand score technique is a simpler
technique which may give simplified direction on strategy development. The study aims to
give a direction on measurement of strategy through brand score technique. It is a
conceptual paper; therefore, it needs more scrutiny in further research.

2. Research problems and need for study

Brands need to be periodically measured in terms of the impact on consumers, stimulating
market demand, sustaining seasonality (Rajagopal, 2007) effects and exploring
opportunities for proliferation. The challenges that marketers could face are to optimize the
brand score and to find the key drivers of brand score, profiling it accordingly and
developing the core strategies. Pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase experience
can play an important point in building up the brand score and image (Srivastava et al.,
2013). Measurement of an image can be perceptive, but it is not a comprehensive
approach. Similarly, brand equity used to measure the effectiveness of the strategy, but its
usage is occasional (Rajagopal, 2008). Therefore, brand scores could be a tool to measure
the impact on brand strategy on a brand. Will the brand score go up with higher brand
equity? How a brand strategy can affect a brand scores? How brand scores and brand
image related to each other?
Therefore, we assume that impact on brand strategy is an independent variable, and brand
score is a dependent variable. The consumer’s image of a brand and brand equity also are
dependent variables in the study. There is a paucity of research to evaluate the
effectiveness of a brand strategy. Brand score parameters are an effective tool for
measurement a strategy. Our research is an attempt to use brand score parameters to
measure the brand strategy. This paper tries to study how brand score used to measure the
effectiveness of brand strategy. This will fill the gap between the existing researches
because in emerging markets, there is hardly similar research. As western culture is
different from eastern culture, this research assumes its significance. Brand score will also
be useful in measuring the effectiveness of communication strategy on brand extensions of
different categories.

3. Literature review
Successful strategy of brands of a product category requires measurement models that
are able to disentangle a brand’s unique traits from that trait that are common to all
brands in the product category. Brand performance denotes a brand’s strength in the
market (O’Cass and Ngo, 2007). A number of researchers such as Reid (2002);
Chaudhuri (2002) and Wong and Merrilees (2007); Tuan (2012, 2014) view brand
reputation, awareness and loyalty as a brand’s crucial performance. Rajagopal’s (2007)
and Tuan (2014) view, numerous companies engage a variety of integrated marketing
activities to monitor brand performance indicators by 5As explicated as brand
awareness, acquaintance, association, allegiance and appraisal spread over
perception, performance and financial factors. Brand acquaintance refers to
customers’ familiarity with the brands of a company, and brand association refers to
customers’ buying behaviour towards the acquainted brands. At the same time,
according to O’Cass and Ngo (2007), allegiance and an appraisal are synonymous with
performance of a brand of investments made by the company. Brand market share and
brand sales volume were utilized as metrics of the market performance of a brand
(Keller and Lehmann’s, 2003). Brand market share and brand sales volume indicate the
relative market share and sales volume of a brand compared to other brands.
Respondents are invited to rate the sales volume, market share and overall brand

PAGE 28 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

performance of their brand on a seven-point Likert scale. However, crucial components
of a brand strategy and application of brand scorecard as an integrated approach to
measuring the overall performance of brands is missing from these studies. Many
factors such as brands delivering the benefit customers truly desire, brands staying
relevant to customers, perceived pricing in the customer’s mind, brand portfolio,
customer service expectation, consistence in brands, offering unique solution were not
considered by the earlier researchers (Keller and Lehmann’s, 2003; O’Cass and Ngo,
2007; Wong and Merrilees, 2007; Rajagopal’s, 2008). Not much research papers have
come out after 2010. In an emerging market, there are paucity of similar researches.
Therefore, a simple approach to measure the communication strategy is needed, which
can give direction in comparison to other brands including brand extension.

3.1 Measurement tools

There are many methods adopted by different authors on measuring the communication
strategy of a brand. Authors such as Keller and Lehmann’s (2003) have used brand market
share and sales volume to measure the effectiveness. Brand reputation, awareness and
loyalty have been used by Reid (2002), Chaudhuri (2002), Wong and Merrilees (2007),
Tuan (2012, 2014). Rajagopal (2007) and Tuan (2014) measured the effectiveness on five
parameters such as awareness, acquaintance, association, allegiance and appraisal
spread over perception. Customer evaluation of the brand extension and equity are the
other parameters used by authors such as (Klink and Smith, 2001; Kaveh and Saleki, 2013,
Leone et al., 2006, Ghorbani et al., 2013).

3.2 Brand score and its impact on communication strategy

Just like a scoreboard in cricket determines the potential for the team as a whole keeping
in mind the individual potentials of each player, similarly the score or a brand determines
the potential of the brand keeping in mind the potential of many factors that are involved in
building the brand (Srivastava et al., 2013). Brand score can reflect the image of a brand
of customer’s mind in a measured approach. Brand image is created by effective
communication strategy and total experience of a customer created. This becomes
important to brand extensions, especially in a new category with good brand equity.
A large number of companies have resorted to brand extension strategies to maximize
mind share and market share (Srivastava et al., 2013). Brand extensions may be similar or
dissimilar from the original core brand in terms of function, appearance and even usage.
Extensions also influence and energise the core of the brand. The success of a brand
extension is largely determined by how customers evaluate the extension (Klink and Smith,
2001; Kaveh and Saleki, 2013). Information extended for the parent brand is also equally
important to form an attitude towards its extension (Lane, 2000). Brand score can be useful
in measuring the effectiveness of the communication strategy.

3.3 Communication strategy and brand building

Much attention over the years has been given to the development of effective brand
communication strategies for acquiring and retaining customers (Knox and Freeman,
2006). Customer retention and acquisition will depend up on how the brand is projected
through marketing strategies because consumer tends to engage for partnership with a
brand (Marianne, 2007). A robust communication strategy will lead to better understanding
of brands and developing a robust personality. At the same time, to enhance brand benefit
compared to others, a comparative advertising according to Jain and Steven (2004) has
led to lower brand attitude scores. No doubt, a right strategy has helped to make a
successful brand because of building up the positive brand image. Strategy forms the
basis of the firms and, hence, contributes to the firm’s brand equity and brand scores. The
brand strategist can ensure a more synergistic and effective communication (Sreedhar
et al., 2005). Therefore, companies that manage a successful brand can enjoy higher sales,

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 29

 repeat purchases and help to meet consumer expectation (Gibson, 2003). A good strategy
not only helps in building brand equity and image but also helps in improving brand
score – the proposed barometer for measuring effectiveness of any strategy.

3.4 Brand equity and communication strategy

Keller (1993) defines brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on
consumer responses to the marketing of the brand and suggests brand awareness and
brand image as the constructs related to customer-based brand equity. In contemporary
marketing, brand equity has emerged as key strategic assets that need to be monitored
and nurtured for maximum long-term performance (Srivastava, 2008). Customer equity and
brand equity are the most important topics for the academic researcher (Leone et al.,
2006). Brand equity as a central business concept for the organization has recently
emerged. According to study of Kaveh and Saleki, 2013), marketing activities and research
and development make brand equity and thus practitioners should pay attention to alliance
strategy because equity do influence the strategy. Therefore, brand equity has been
introduced to a key issue in marketing strategy (Ghorbani et al., 2013).

3.5 Brand equity and its interface with brand score

In contemporary marketing, brand equity has emerged as key strategic assets that need to
be monitored and nurtured for maximum long-term performance (Srivastava, 2008).
Customer equity and brand equity are the most important topics for the academic
researcher (Leone et al., 2006). Brand score and brand equity can be interdependent
because higher brand equity means brand score could be on the higher side. Brand score
could be easier to calculate and for linking strategy and brand equity. In the earlier study
(Srivastava, 2004), brand equity for Lux was higher and brand score on overall
performance compared to others soaps was also on the higher side. Brand equity should
correlate with the brand score. Brand score technique could be one of alternatives to
measure the strategic impact on the perception and correlated with brand equity.
Shares of equity provide a customer-based understanding of brands positions in
customer’s mind (Srivastava, 2008). Therefore, interfaces with brand scores could be one
of the alternatives for assessing the strategy on brand equity.
The summary of the different approaches to measure the communication strategy
effectiveness are given below.
Thus, brand score techniques are not used by above authors in their study. Based on these
studies, the independent and dependent variables are identified to develop theoretical
constructs. The brand performance is the result of desirability and profitability in each
brand. Brand score technique will foretell the impact by analysing the communication
strategies. Brand score techniques could be one of the alternatives to measure the strategy
impact on the perception and be correlated with brand equity. Therefore, there must be an
emotional connection that inspires consumer to purchase the brand. Promotional strategies
help to achieve the same. Brand score techniques will be able to measure their
effectiveness in achieving their objectives.

4. Identification of variables and development of theoretical constructs

In our paper, we assume that impact of brand strategy is an independent variable and
brand score is a dependent variable. The consumer’s image of a brand and brand equity
also are dependent variables in the study. Brand score can measure the extended brand
strategy which is different from the scale used by Keller and Lehmann’s (2003), O’Cass and
Ngo (2007), Wong and Merrilees (2007), Rajagopal (2008) but is adopted from Srivastava,
(2004, 2008, 2009; Srivastava et al., 2013).
The major advantage of a brand measurement system is that it links brand management
and business performance of the firm, which has emerged as a strategic management tool

PAGE 30 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

for continuous improvement in a static snapshot in time of the brand’s performance
(Rajagopal, 2008; Tuan, 2012). An effective brand measurement system helps businesses
to understand how the brand is performing with the framework of the significant intangible
value of brands, building and managing brand equity has become a priority for companies
of all sizes in a wide variety of industries and markets. Consequently, monitoring brands
metrics, which assesses how a brand is performing in the marketplace, is critically
important (Allawadi et al., 2003).
Frequent introduction of new brands also leads to instability in the brand management process
because new brands got pushed piggybacked to temporary market demand, and companies
would commit high investment to sustain such brands against fluctuating market demands. A
business that intends to reap the benefits of using brands as a driver of business success
needs to begin the process by identifying and managing in a more systematic and structured
way. The association that contributes to brand scores, image, equity could affect business
financially (most important base being the sales). Therefore, a right strategy implementation
could enhance brand images, equity and eventually help in increasing the sales.
Communication strategy and brand equity are independent variables with brand score taken
as a dependent variable in our model. This is showcased in Figure 1.
From the above diagrams, we can see that the brand score and the brand equity of the
brand is inherited by a new product during line extension, but the communication strategy
has to be devised as that for a new business altogether. The communication strategy has
to be compatible with the brand image so as to increase the brand equity and hence the
success of the line extension.
This is a simple and effective tool for measuring brand performance in the market woven
around the principle of pooling quantitative variations such as communication, brand score
and brand equity and strategy in various combinations in the metrics (Rajagopal, 2008;
Tuan, 2012). It is important for a firm to understand relationships between brand
perceptions, brand performance to work within the brand metrics process. The relationship
inherited and learned through key drivers of demand, analysing customer interaction with
the brand and evaluating the influence of the brand in choosing brand extension. It links
brand management and business performance of the firm, which has emerged as a
strategic management tool for continuous improvement to a static snapshot in time of the
brand’s performance.

Figure 1 Proposed model on brand score and communication strategy

Model to explain the interlink behaviour of the parent brand’s

Communicaon Strategy, Brand Score and Brand Equity on Line
Extension

Communicaon
Brand Score Brand Equity
Strategy

Endorsed
Product/Brand

Extension Inherited

Communicaon Inherited
Strategy

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 31

 5. Objectives of the study
The specific objective is to understand the approach to measurement of strategy
through application of brand scores. This understanding of brand scores will help in
reducing wastage of promotional expenditure. Another purpose of this paper is to
discuss the essential components of a brand scorecard as an integrated approach to
measure the overall performance of brands of brand extension strategy. Objectives are
to find out the ratings on different brand parameters of three products of the liquid
dishwasher category. We also try to find out that whether the brand extension of a
well-established brand guarantees better performance of the new brand in a new
category

6. Developing hypotheses
Brand extension is a well-researched area across the globe. However, when a brand of
strong equity introduces a brand extension in a category, which are new categories and a
low involved category creates a new thinking about the steps taken by the organisation. As
eastern culture, being collective culture, is different from western culture, which is
individualist in nature, acceptance of the same cannot be in line with other publications.
Measuring the effectiveness of such communication strategy is important. Brand score
results from a quantitative assessment of customer perception linked to purchasing
behaviour, consumer preferences. Thus, brand equity, brand score as dependent
variables and communication strategy as an independent variable are considered in
developing hypotheses. Brand scores could directly measure the impact of the strategy.
Therefore, our first hypothesis is:
H1. The brand score is dependent on the communication strategy of the brand and
higher score results in higher sales.
The brand measurement system is dependent on the effective brand strategy. Wrong
strategy will have an adverse impact on the brand equity and subsequent brand extension.
Brand equity is also inherited while brand extension. Hence, good brand equity because of
inheritance may help on success of the brand extensions. This can be measured by brand
scores. Therefore, the second hypothesis is proposed as under:
H2. The brand extension product performs well due to the inheritance of the brand
equity of the parent brand.
Brand inheritance or acquaintance is described as the familiarity of consumers with the
brands and buying behaviour of consumers towards the acquainted brands refers to brand
association. Frequent introductions of new brands also lead to instability in the brand
management process. Therefore, strong brand equity may help in brand extensions. An
effective brand measurement system helps businesses to understand how the brand is
performing. High brand equity provides many competitive advantages to the company.
Brand equity is understood as the highest value paid for the brand.

7. Methodology
A survey was conducted to test the brand score and to see if communication effectiveness
impacts the brand scores. This paper discusses the essential components of a brand score
and its use to adjust its brand when compared to other brand business strategy. Three
brands in liquid washing categories are taken for study. Pril, Vim and Dettol are global
brands. Introduction of premium soap – Dettol in a liquid washing category – is the
interesting area because premium soap with its own brand equity has introduced the brand
extension in a category, which is different and has its own category of customers. Western
culture is different from eastern culture (Baverlee and Srivastava, 2012). Therefore,
acceptance of brand extensions is the point of interest, especially in context of eastern
culture. There is a paucity of similar research in emerging markets likes India

PAGE 32 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

7.1 Research design
The research design used in the present study is using judgement sampling using the
survey methodology for data collection. It is based on cross-sectional study. The research
was both secondary and primary in nature. This paper determines the essential
components of a brand score based on earlier work of Srivastava, (2009), Lehmann et al.,
(2008) and Rajagopal (2008) conceptualizing the inter-dependence of ten brand scores
factors built in the questionnaire to measure the performance of brands. It differs from
earlier study because the study is cross-sectional. The application of a brand scorecard
process as an integrated approach to measure the overall performance of brands is
discussed, explaining how different constituents of brand score can be linked to business
performance.

7.2 Sample design

It is judgmental sampling. Only females are taken up for the study because of product
categories under study.
They are selected in Mumbai and the majority of them are homemakers. As it is an
exploratory study, the sample size is justified as per (Umasekaran, 2006; Srivastava,
2009;Wilson and Till, 2011). As it was one-to-one interview, more time was given by the
respondents as prior appointments are taken. These women are the regular users of either
of these brands. There is high degree of familiarity because of limited number of brands
available in this category. Because of nucleus family, there are no heavy or light users.
Washing utensil through machine is non-existence.

7.3 Research tool

Questionnaire was developed after pilot testing. It covers areas covering brand score
rating on ten different parameters – the brand stays relevant; the brand excels at delivering
the benefits customers truly desire; pricing strategy is based on consumers’ perceptions of
value; brand portfolio and hierarchy make sense; brand make use of and coordinates a full
repertoire of marketing activities to build equity; brand’s managers understand what the
brand means to consumers; brand is given proper support; and that support is sustained
over the long-run based on earlier study of Srivastava (2009). This process resulted in the
scales adaptation of the process from work of Donald et al. (2008). Measurement scale is
from one to ten scales as per methodology followed by Wilson and Till (2011); Srivastava
(2009) and Hopelin (2003). Adequate internal consistency of 0.73 and 0.84 for the scales
are considered as per study of Liddell et al. (1992) with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
exceeding the recommended cut-off point of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1967). The reliability of each
construct and its specific dimensions were confirmed. They are administered to 120
females because they are the users of the products through one-to-one interview process.

7.4 Data analysis

The sample design therefore is planned keeping the above facts in mind, and based on the
initial survey of 120 people, using Microsoft Excel for tabulation and calculation of z-test,
ANOVA is used. As it is a practitioner and conceptual work, other statistical techniques
such as structural equation were not used because we felt a simple test can communicate
the same message to understand the problems and solution better.

8. Results
“What is not measured is not managed” is a well-worn management catchphrase. Brand
scores are considered to be effective tools for measuring the qualitative assessment of brand
performance in a given market and time, allowing the firm to measure the effectiveness of
brand strategy in brand building activity in reference brand impact in business in comparison
with competitors. Effective brand portfolio management starts by creating a fact base on equity
in each brand and the brand’s economic contribution. An effective brand measurement system

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 33

 helps businesses to understand how the brand is performing with the framework of customer
values and against competing brands.
The first part of the study is to analyse the three brands of liquid dishwasher segment.
Dettol is the new line extension in this segment. The study covers understanding product
awareness and usage. This is given in Table I.
For Dettol, Zcal ⫽ 3.8 ⬎ Ztab, so there is a significant difference between heard and used.
For Pril, Zcal ⫽ 6.2 ⬎ Ztab, so there is a significant difference between heard and used.
For Vim, Zcal ⫽ 5 ⬎ Ztab, so there is a significant difference between heard and used.
From the above table, it is seen that none of the brands have fared extremely well in terms
of call for action to buy. However, amongst the three, Dettol liquid is the most heard of and
its conversion rate is the highest. It shows that Reckitt Benckiser’s (Dettol’s parent
company) communication strategy has the minimum media wastage and has been able to
deliver the message to the consumers in the most effective manner. Brand creation through
an effective marketing strategy is necessary for creation of unique associations for the
customer’s memory (Rafi et al., 2011) Therefore, the following Figure 2 shows the
percentage of people who have heard, but not used, an individual brand.
From the above Figure 2, we see that the number of users who have heard of Dettol liquid
and not used is a small 20 per cent. Thus, one can claim Dettol liquid has the highest
conversion ratio to minimal wastage. Hence, its communication strategy is working well. On
the other hand, almost half of the people who have heard of Pril, never used it. The reasons
could be faults of distribution, communication or pricing strategies. It also means that Dettol
is able to transfer its character to line extensions in a category where the product usage
changes form a body to liquid dishwasher. Brand management model transferring its
character (including its different brands, business divisions and staff) and coherence to all
its performances is possible (Nuriavillagra, 2013).
The next analysis is to measure the brand score for the three brands taken from the same
category based on the usage. Ten parameters are used to measure the brand score of
these three brands. This is given in Table II.
ANOVA is used to determine whether there are any significant differences between the
means of three or more independent (unrelated) groups. ANOVA is available for both
parametric (score data) and non-parametric (ranking/ordering) data. There is a significant
difference with respect to relevance, delivery as per expectations, perceived value,
consistency, scope of developing allied products, brand future outlooks, promotional

Table I Product awareness and usage

Brand Heard (%) Used (%)

Dettol 92.50 73.33

Pril 81.67 41.67
Vim 84.17 54.16

Figure 2 Heard but not used

PAGE 34 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

Table II Brand score ratings
No. Brand Dettol Pril Vim

1 The brand stays relevant 7.52 5.22 6.47

2 The brand excels at delivering the benefits customers truly desire 6.89 5.67 5.98
3 The pricing strategy is based on consumers’ perceptions of value 7.05 5.57 6.35
4 The brand is consistent 7.13 5.53 6.37
5 The brand portfolio and hierarchy make sense 6.21 5.53 6.09
6 The brand make use of and coordinates a full repertoire of marketing activities to build equity 7.5 5.6 6.5
7 The brand’s managers understand what the brand means to consumers 4.51 4.89 5.25
8 The brand is given proper support 7.86 5.85 6.99
9 Product offers some unique solution 5.89 5.18 5.8
10 Benefit more than pricing 5.48 4.94 5.52

offers, expectations from the brand, product offers some unique solution, benefit more than
pricing (ANOVA, Fcal ⫽ 7.44 ⬎ Ftab). The brand score signifies the strength of the brand.
The strength of brands could be traced to a customer’s perception and understanding
about what they have gained, observed, sensed and heard regarding a brand as a
consequence of customer involvement with a particular brand in the past (Keller, 2003).
None of the brands have been successful in wholly meeting the needs of the customers.
However, Dettol is perceived to offer products, which are the most relevant, consistent,
meeting expectations, greater value for money. As a result, the expectations from the brand
are high and the outlook seems bright. This is despite of the fact that Dettol offers the lowest
promotional offers. Thus, this confirms the brand extension product performs well because
of the brand equity of the parent brand (H2), but the communication strategy should be
aggressive. One of the reasons could be that the respondents perceive products of lesser
offers as the one with better quality. The respondents also feel there is a scope of
developing allied products of the future. Higher brand scores mean better strength of the
brand. It may lead to better brand equity too. Yoo et al. (2000) and Atilgan et al. (2005) have
stated that a strong brand association leads to higher brand loyalty. Brand loyalty means
better brand equity too.
The next part of the study is to rate the products on different parameters such as quality,
price, availability, performance, etc. Jacoby et al. (1971) conducted an experimental
research and have discovered that the consumers’ perception of quality and value are
significantly affected by the brand image. Similar conclusions are derived from Shimp and
Bearden (1982), as well as Rao and Monroe (1989). It will be interesting to study the
product rating of two well-established brands with Dettol, a new entrant to this category.
This is given in Table III.
Fcal ⫽ 5.96 ⬎ Ftab, so there is a significant difference with respect to quality, price,
availability, performance, advertisements, schemes, bottle size and value for money.
Dettol liquid outshines its competitors in almost all fronts. Thus, we can conclude that Dettol
liquid has a favourable customer perception of the respondents. This position in the
customer’s mind can allow Dettol liquid to charge price premiums or experiment with allied
products because the customer has strong associations with the brand. Strangely, Dettol
liquid indulges in little sales promotion vis-à-vi its competitors still it has a favourable
perception in the minds of the customers. Overall, Dettol liquid has a good share of mind,

Table III Product ratings on eight parameters

Brand Quality Price Availability Performance Advertisements Schemes Bottle size Value for money

Dettol 7.82 6.64 8.2 7.72 6.92 4.87 6.73 7.08

Pril 6.4 6.24 6.98 6.52 5.58 4.97 6.16 6.32
Vim 7 6.35 7.68 7.08 6.9 5.48 6.41 6.74

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 35

 which will eventually lead to a share of the wallet (repeat purchase), and thus greater
market share.
The next part of the study is to find out reasons for buying such products in liquid
dishwasher segments. This is given in Table IV.
The above table shows the importance of each parameter while making a purchasing
decision. The most important thing that the respondents seek was the product quality
followed by the value of money and performance. Surprisingly, advertisements and
schemes are of less importance to the consumers; the two parameters on which the
company spends a fortune. The knowledge of these insights can help in positioning the
product to create a meaningful differentiation that the audience can relate to. The study of
a comparison between the three brands of customers’ satisfaction is given in Table V.
From the above table it is clear that Fcal ⫽ 0.296 ⬍ Ftab, so there is no significant difference with
respect to awareness of customers’ tastes and preferences, focus on maximising product
experience, optimisation on price and quality and success in satisfying unmet demands.
The above display the reasons why Dettol liquid has emerged better brand because of the
most effective communication strategy. On all fronts, Dettol beat its competitors by a significant
margin. It can be because of the fact that Dettol liquid was the latest entrant in the category and
tried to fill the gaps in the current offerings. At the same time, Dettol’s image is already good in
customer’s mind. In all parameters, Dettol outshines Vim, which is a close second, and Pril by
a huge margin. Even brand scores calculated on ten parameters Dettol (average brand
score – 6.89) scores over Vim (6.49) a market leader and Pril (5.82).
When Dettol scores on all other parameters, it is bound to have the highest brand score.
Dettol has the highest brand score followed by Vim and Pril in that order. Thus, brand score
technique is a mathematical way of assessing the effectiveness of the communication
strategy for any brand. Therefore, brand scores not only suggest the effectiveness of the
communication strategy but also are reflected in brand equity too. Thus, brand score is
dependent on the strategy of the brand and higher score results in higher sales (H1).

9. Discussions and conclusions

Brand score measurement is a simple and effective tool for measuring brand performance
in the market woven around the principle of pooling quantitative variables in various
combinations. The study has revealed that Dettol has the highest brand score followed by
Vim and Pril in that order. This is despite the fact that Dettol dishwasher liquid has been
around for less than a year. Dettol as a brand has the highest perceived value.

Table IV The pain points while purchasing liquid dishwasher products

Value
Parameter Quality Price Availability Performance Advertisements Schemes Bottle size for money

Importance while buying the product 8.89 7.83 7.89 8.63 5.59 5.67 6.85 8.63

Table V Brand performance of two major brands when compared to Dettol brand extension in liquid dishwasher
market
Aware of the customers’ Focus on maximising Optimisation on Success in satisfying
Brand tastes and preferences the product experience price and quality the unmet demands

Dettol 7.59 7.37 7.03 7.39

Pril 6.34 6.47 6.34 5.94
Vim 7.11 7.07 6.68 6.75

PAGE 36 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

Studying the findings of the research, we designed a model (Figure 1) explains the interlink
behaviour of the parent brand’s communication strategy, brand score and brand equity on
brand extensions. Confirmation of hypotheses – H1 and H2 supports the model.
Brand linkage model connecting brand score with communication strategy and brand
equity underscored the link between the customer mind set and brand market. Frequent
introduction of new brand also leads to instability in the brand management process
because new brands are pushed piggybacked to temporary market demand, and
companies would commit high investment to sustain such brand against fluctuating market
demand. Therefore, brand score measurement may emerge as an effective tool for such
situations. This is similar to object-oriented programming, where a parent class, with its set
of “private” and “public” attributes helps inherit the “public” attributes to its child class,
thereby protecting the “private” attributes as developed in our model for brands. Brand
score is a simple and effective tool of measuring brand performance, which is woven
around the pooling of quantitative variables in combinations. It is important for a firm to
understand relationships between brand perceptions and brand performance. The brand
relationship is developed based on several factors such as socio-group pressure, the
established emotion relationship between the brand and consumer are driven by the
company reputation, word of mouth by acquired instruments driven by low price, brand
homogeneity, as well as the acquired emotion driven by brand meaning, the services (not
suitable in this study context), product value, brand elements, etc. Brand score is a
suggested step to measure impact of the strategies.
Brand score technique results from a quantitative assessment of customer perception
linked to purchasing behaviour. It also helps in understanding consumers’ awareness,
satisfaction and preferences. Brand score helps in understanding the same in more
scientific ways. Higher brand score reflects on these parameters.
It is simple to measure and gives a direct comparison of the brand strength developed
because of strategy and in identifying the weakness of a strategy of a brand when compared
to others. This can be done with minimal effort because it gives scale measurement of a brand
of ten factors. Brand score will give a direction on weakness and strength of a brand.

10. Practical implications of the study

The present study is successful to the extent of understanding the brand score usage,
which is nothing but a mental perception of the brand in the minds of the customer. Liquid
dishwasher category being in the low involvement categories, the major challenge is to
stand out and differentiate among the competitors.
Brand scores provide indication based on the various elements that measured a brand
strategy for practicing managers. It will help the brand managers to calculate the average
score of all items with a certain sample and determine which type of brand score it is
according to the level of the average score and help him to take decision accordingly.
When a brand initiates an extension, it carries with it the brand perception and thus the
brand equity with it. However, the consistency in the brand image depends on how
effectively the brand communicates its extended product to the customer.
A study of brand scores of a brand extension of competing brands will give direction to
communication strategy in comparison to competitors. Managers can calculate the brand
scores on a six monthly or yearly basis to study the impact of their brand strategy to get
better insight on the effectiveness. It can also give new directions on developing brand
strategy. Lifebuoy changed their brand strategy, based on their brand score matrix, from
germicidal effect to total protection against infection among children through hand wash
usage strategy approach. The present study will help the brand managers to realise the
sources of different brand that will help to explain the reasons why customers buy or use
certain brand as brand scores will give insight to this problems. For example, as per our
study, brand score for Dettol is 7.52 compared to Pril 5.22 on “Brand stays relevant”.

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 37

 Therefore, as a brand manager of Pril he has to look in to product profile attributes and
expectation of consumers to match its relevance. Similarly, the advertisement
communication strategy needs to be relooked as brand excels in communicating the brand
benefits for Pril is only 5.67 compared to other two brands. Thus, this information will be of
great help to brand managers to establish emotion through changing strategies. Thus, by
understanding the brand score, marketing input or strategy or communication, such as
advertising, sales promotions, price-related promotions, can be reviewed and help in
generating extra sales, penetrate the market, etc. Our present study will help in implement
the WOM of marketing tactics and enrich the connotation of the brand through the IMC. It
is critical in developing brand equity which it can develop brand performance
expectations, trustworthiness, increase value, etc.

11. Research limitations

This study, conducted across the metro cities may represent different cultures. However, it may
not represent the Tier 2 and below population, including the rural population. However, with the
penetration of such goods sweeping in to these markets, it will be interesting to explore if similar
strategy clicks with these consumers. We are not aware of advertisements spent to know the
return on investment. Brand equity is not calculated to measure the impact of extensions
because brand scores are simpler tools for calculating the impact (Srivastava et al., 2013;
Rajagopal, 2008). The study was conducted with 120 respondents. A greater number of people
under study could have made it a better picture, but then there has to be a practical limit to it.
The study was conducted encompassing some of the major cities of Maharashtra. On a
national level, the expectations may be different. The paper lacks in-depth theoretical support
because it is conceptual in nature. Therefore, the paper also lacks in-depth theoretical support
because it is more of a practitioner paper. The perspective of the research was static even
though it is based on practitioners’ study, but it need to have better discussions on the dynamic
brand score rather than just to explore it influencing brand strategy because the study wants
to access more on consumers’ awareness, satisfaction and preferences as the main purpose
of the study. Present study though bridges the gap in brand management context for
practitioners but is not comprehensive. Emotional bond with the brands in the consumer minds
is not covered under this research.

References
Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (1993), Brand Equity and Advertising: Role in Building Brand, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Andrew, A. (2002), “Additive versus inclusive approach to measuring brand equity”, Brand
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 342-352.

Allawadi, K.L., Lehman, D.R. and Neslin, S.A. (2003), “Revenue premium as an outcome measure of
brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1-17.

Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S. and Akinci, S. (2005), “Determinants of the brand equity: a verification approach
in the beverage industry in Turkey”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-248.

Baverlee, A. and Srivastava, R.K. (2012), “Understanding consumer behaviour of students of India and
USA towards purchase”, Sydenham Management Research The International Research Journal, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 39-52, ISSN-2249-9490.

Chaudhuri, A. (2002), “How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 33-43.

Cobb-Walgreen, K.J., Ruble, C.A. and Dontha, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 25-40.

Cornwell, T.B., Roy, D.B. and Steinard, E.A. (2001), “Exploring of brand equity”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 41-52.

Lehmann, D.R., Keller, K.L. and Farley, J.U. (2008), “The structure of survey-based brand metrics”,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 29-56.

PAGE 38 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

Ghorbani, H., Masoomeh, S. and Reza, M. (2013), “Based brand equity some research questions and
implications”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 459-468.

Gibson, D. (2003), “Measuring brand effectiveness”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 166-182.

Günter, T. and Krieghaum-Kling, C. (2001), “Brand valuation and control: an empirical study”,
Schalenbach Business Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 263-294.

Jacoby, J., Olson, J. and Haddock, R. (1971), “Price, brand name, and product composition
characteristics as determinants of perceived quality”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 570-579.

Jain, S.P. and Steven, S. (2004), “Measuring brand strength”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 37-52.

Joachimsthaler, E. and Aaker D.A (1997), “Market orientation antecedence”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Kaveh, J. and Saleki, R. (2013), “New brand creation and power of alliance strategy”Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 461-467.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualization, measuring and managing consumer based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity,
2nd ed., Prentice Hall, NJ.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003), “How do brands create value?”, Marketing Management,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 26-32.

Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001), “Threats to the external validity of brand extension research”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 326-335.

Knox, S. and Freeman, C. (2006), “Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service
industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7/8, pp. 695-716.

Lane, V.R. (2000), “The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perceptions of
incongruent extensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 80-91.

Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L. and Srivastava, R. (2006), “Linking brand
equity to customer equity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 125-138.

Liddell, D.L., Halpin, G. and Halpin, W.G. (1992), “The measure of moral orientation: measuring the
ethics of care and justice”, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 325-330.

Tuan, L.T. (2012), “Behind brand performance”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 42-57.

Tuan, L.T. (2014), “Corporate governance and brand performance”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 45-68.

Marianne, W. (2007), “Understand your target”, Management Science, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 1634-1644.

Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Nuriavillagra, B. (2013), “Analysis of values and communication of the responsible brands: corporate
brand strategies for sustainability”, Communication and Society Comunicación y Sociedad, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 196-221.

O’Cass, A. and Ngo, L.V. (2007), “Balancing external adaptation and internal effectiveness: achieving
better brand performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 11-20.

Pappu, A.R., Quested, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2006), “consumer based brand equity and country of
origin relationship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 696-717.

Rafi, A., Arslan, A., Waris, S. and Rehman, K.U. (2011), “Knowledge metrics of brand equity; critical
measure of brand attachment”, Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-50.

Rajagopal (2007), “Brand metrics: a tool to measure performance”, available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/

abstract⫽964695 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.964695

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 39

 Rajagopal (2008), “Measuring brand performance through metrics application”, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-38.

Rao, A. and Monroe, K. (1989), “The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’
perceptions of product quality: an integrative review”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 351-357.

Reid, M. (2002), “Building strong brands through the management of integrated marketing
communications”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 37-52.

Shimp, T.A. and Bearden, W.O. (1982), “Warranty and other extrinsic are effects on consumer’s risk
perceptions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 38-46.

Sreedhar, M., Vishag, B. and McDonald, R.E. (2005), “IMC and brand identity as critical components
of the brand equity strategy”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 69-80.

Srivastava, R.K. (2004), “How brand score/equity can effect branding strategy development?”, Indian
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 35-42.

Srivastava, R.K. (2008), 8th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Business, Waikiki Beach
Marriott Resort and Spa in Honolulu, 22-25 May.

Srivastava, R.K. (2009), “Measuring brand strategy: can brand equity and brand score be a tool to
measure the effectiveness of strategy?” Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 487-497.

Srivastava, R., Mehta, K.G., Nandakumarand, V. and Shah, J. (2013), “Brand score and strategy”,
AsiaPacific Business Research Conference, Mumbai.

Stern, B., Zinkhan, G.M. and Jaju, A. (2001), “Marketing image: construct definition, measurement
issue”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practices, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 201-244.

Vargo, S., Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominance logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Wilson, R.T. and Till, B.D. (2011), “Effects of outdoor advertising: does location matter?”, Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 909-933.

Wong, H. and Merrilees, B. (2007), “Closing the marketing strategy to performance gap: the role of
brand orientation”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 387-402.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.

Further reading
Browman, D. and Narayandas, D. (2001), “Managing customer initiated contacts: the impact of word
of mouth”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 281-297.

Cheng, J.M., Chen, L.L., Lin Julia, Y.C. and Wang, E.S. (2007), “Do consumer perceive differences
among national brands international Pvt label and local private label case of Taiwan?”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 368-376.

Diesinker, C. and Romaniuk, J. (2006), “Comparing methods of brand image measurement”,

International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 681-698.

Display and Design Idea (2007), “Product scores Matrix”, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 60-62.

Kotler, P. (1988), Marketing Management Analysis, Planning and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Clifs, NJ.

Parker, J. (2007), “Brand measurement – a tool”, Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 309-331.

Plummer, J.T. (2007), “Word of mouth – new advertising discipline”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 385-400.

Rajagopal (2011), “The symphony paradigm: strategy for managing market competition”, Journal of
Transnational Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 181-199.

Shiva, N. (2005), “An exploration of the brand identity-image linkage: a communication perspective”,
Brand Management, April, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 264-278.

PAGE 40 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016

Web Reference
Interbrand (2014), available at: www.interbrand.com/en (accessed 22 October).

Corresponding author
Rajesh Srivastava can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

VOL. 20 NO. 3 2016 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE PAGE 41