Data Analysis and Interpretations - Report Example

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction: 3 Section Personal Information: 3 Section 2: General Information: 3 1.0 Are you aware of Marks and Spencer (M&S)? 3 2.0 How many times do you visit M&S in a month? 3 3.0 The reasons for your visit to M&S 3 Section 3: Overall impression for M&S 4 4.0 Overall rating for the products offered by M&S 4 5.0 Please provide your views for M&S products 6 6.0 Please provide your views for the statements. (Purchase of M&S products.... 13 7.0 How will you rate M&S? 20 8.0 Please provide your view of the following: 21 9.0 What has been your interaction rate with M&S? 27 Recommendations: 32 Conclusion: 33 Reference List 34 Introduction: This chapter of the research is based on data collection and interpretation process. The data was collected with the help of a Likert Scale survey and has been analysed using the statistical software SPSS. The data interpretation process helps the researcher in understand the responses gathered and the contribution of the data collection process in fulfilling the objectives of the study. The data collection process was done in three segments namely, personal information, general information and specific questions related with the objectives and subject matter of the research. Section 1: Personal Information: Section 2: General Information: 1.0 Are you aware of Marks and Spencer (M&S)? Given the huge brand image of M&S, all the respondents (100) have heard about the company. 2.0 How many times do you visit M&S in a month? Options Responses Total Respondents Response % Once 37 100 37 Twice 11 100 11 More than twice 52 100 52 The above given table summarises the response of the participants. Majority of the respondents (52%) visit M&S more than twice a month and around 37% of the respondents visit M&S once a month. Only 11% visit M&S twice a month. 3.0 The reasons for your visit to M&S Options Responses Total Respondents Response % Clothing 22 100 22 Home Products 19 100 19 Food Products 18 100 18 All of the above 41 100 41 Majority of the respondents (41%) visit M&S stores for their all inclusive shopping purposes. 22% of the respondents visit M&S for clothing and the remaining 37% have been segmented among home products (19%) and food products (18%) respectively. Although majority of the respondents consider M&S to be a supermarket store for every need, the individual performance of the segments showed clear domination of their clothing segment. Section 3: Overall impression for M&S 4.0 Overall rating for the products offered by M&S Good Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 5 5.0 5.0 8.0 2.00 17 17.0 17.0 25.0 3.00 30 30.0 30.0 55.0 4.00 27 27.0 27.0 82.0 5.00 18 18.0 18.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Favourable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 7 7.0 7.0 11.0 2.00 17 17.0 17.0 28.0 3.00 33 33.0 33.0 61.0 4.00 24 24.0 24.0 85.0 5.00 15 15.0 15.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Satisfactory Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.00 16 16.0 16.0 17.0 3.00 35 35.0 35.0 52.0 4.00 32 32.0 32.0 84.0 5.00 16 16.0 16.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 The above tables and graph show the reaction and response of the participants in context of the services and products of M&S. In case of all the three variables, it was observed that majority of answers were in a neutral position. Nevertheless, comparing the extremes of all the three variables such as good and bad, favourable and unfavourable and satisfactory and unsatisfactory, it can be seen that the respondents have opted for the positive ends more in comparison to the negative aspects (Lehu, 2007). 5.0 Please provide your views for M&S products Quality standards of products Quality Standards Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 3 2.9 3.0 4.0 2.00 15 14.6 15.0 19.0 3.00 29 28.2 29.0 48.0 4.00 31 30.1 31.0 79.0 5.00 21 20.4 21.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 Around 52% of the respondents agreed to the given notion where as 29% remained to stay neutral and the 3% disagreed. The responses reflect that M&S has been able to satisfy their customers with their product and service structure. Consistency of quality Consistency Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 3 2.9 3.0 3.0 1.00 5 4.9 5.0 8.0 2.00 18 17.5 18.0 26.0 3.00 27 26.2 27.0 53.0 4.00 30 29.1 30.0 83.0 5.00 17 16.5 17.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 With 47% of agreement the respondent approved that the M&S has been consistent with their quality level which has made them loyal towards the company. As suggested by Buckingham (2011), product and service quality of a business can uphold the brand image and customer satisfaction level. Value of products for money Value for money Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 4 3.9 4.0 4.0 1.00 7 6.8 7.0 11.0 2.00 21 20.4 21.0 32.0 3.00 23 22.3 23.0 55.0 4.00 27 26.2 27.0 82.0 5.00 18 17.5 18.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 The respondents believe that M&S products and services are value for money. 45% respondents agreed to the statement and around 44% were neutral which reflects high support for the product and service structure of the selected company. Products are priced reasonably Pricing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 2 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.00 8 7.8 8.0 10.0 2.00 23 22.3 23.0 33.0 3.00 28 27.2 28.0 61.0 4.00 25 24.3 25.0 86.0 5.00 14 13.6 14.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 In comparison to the responses gathered in previous statements, the respondents have mostly provided a neutral answer in this case (51%). The pricing process of the company is not able to gain a full positive response from the customers but given the level of satisfaction generated with product and service quality M&S can hold on to its customers. Bottomley and Holden (2009) had regarding pricing as one of the foremost factors influencing the customer decision making process. Degree of workmanship Workmanship Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 5 4.9 5.0 5.0 1.00 11 10.7 11.0 16.0 2.00 22 21.4 22.0 38.0 3.00 23 22.3 23.0 61.0 4.00 24 23.3 24.0 85.0 5.00 15 14.6 15.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 This question is related with that of the product and service quality of M&S. The respondents were once again neutral in their answer (45%). However, comparing the extremes most of the respondents provided a positive indication. The products and services of M&S are developed with outmost care so as to fulfil the needs of their customers till the smallest details (Yoo and Donthu, 2006). Delivery and collection services Delivery collection Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 8 7.8 8.0 9.0 2.00 20 19.4 20.0 29.0 3.00 25 24.3 25.0 54.0 4.00 28 27.2 28.0 82.0 5.00 18 17.5 18.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 The delivery and collection structure of M&S are designed in a centralised manner which can lack the efficiency to focus on the needs of individual customers (Dick and Basu, 2007). The responses also show a neutral trend with 45% support but as in the above cases there is also a good amount of positive responses in favour of M&S. Importance of its eco-friendly products Eco-friendly Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 3 2.9 3.0 3.0 1.00 14 13.6 14.0 17.0 2.00 27 26.2 27.0 44.0 3.00 23 22.3 23.0 67.0 4.00 21 20.4 21.0 88.0 5.00 12 11.7 12.0 100.0 Total 100 97.1 100.0 Missing System 3 2.9 Total 103 100.0 Considering the environmental viability of the products, the amount of negative response has considerably increased in this statement (17%). However, 33% stayed positive and the remaining 50% stayed neutral. This response can be used by the company to improve the sustainability in their product and service development structure. 6.0 Please provide your views for the statements. (Purchase of M&S products.... Would lead to self-satisfaction Self-satisfaction Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 5 5.0 5.0 6.0 2.00 18 18.0 18.0 24.0 3.00 31 31.0 31.0 55.0 4.00 26 26.0 26.0 81.0 5.00 19 19.0 19.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 The respondents considered that the products and services of M&S posses the capability to satisfy their needs and expectations and hence self satisfy them. 45% were positive with their response while 48% stayed neutral and the remaining was not satisfied. The marginal amount of dissatisfied customers may disagree mainly because of the pricing strategy of the company (Siddiqui, OMalley and McCall, 2008). Would ensure to be environment conscious Environment conscious Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.00 12 12.0 12.0 14.0 2.00 23 23.0 23.0 37.0 3.00 24 24.0 24.0 61.0 4.00 22 22.0 22.0 83.0 5.00 17 17.0 17.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Once again in context of environment consciousness, the consumers were not fully convinced of the environment consciousness of M&S. Only 39% were positive about this notion where as the number of dissatisfied customers increased 14%. Weekes (2008) mentioned that sustainability aspects of the business processes are now an integral part of the decision making processes of the customers. Would motivate towards quality standards Quality motivation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 5 5.0 5.0 6.0 2.00 16 16.0 16.0 22.0 3.00 32 32.0 32.0 54.0 4.00 25 25.0 25.0 79.0 5.00 21 21.0 21.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 In terms of quality 46% respondents agreed to the above quality and further 48% were also neutral in their view signifying high favour for M&S. M&S has always focused on providing the best quality products and services for their customers which has also formed the brand perception of the company in the desired manner (Lo, Stalcup and Lee, 2010). Would ensure in having better consideration for brands Brand consideration Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.00 6 6.0 6.0 8.0 2.00 15 15.0 15.0 23.0 3.00 29 29.0 29.0 52.0 4.00 26 26.0 26.0 78.0 5.00 22 22.0 22.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 The brand consideration for M&S was also positive for the customers. The respondents were confident about the quality of the products and services of M&S and around 48% of the respondents agreed to the notion. Only 8% of the respondents disagreed with the notion while the remaining respondents were neutral in their view. Would provide social approval Social approval Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2.00 11 11.0 11.0 11.0 3.00 33 33.0 33.0 44.0 4.00 32 32.0 32.0 76.0 5.00 24 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 In terms of social approval, Bloemer and Kasper (2006) stated that the brand image and the connection of the brand with the society forms the social platform for a company. In case of M&S, 52% respondents agreed to the social approval for M&S as a positive brand while only 4% denied to the notion. Would ascertain convenience for store locations Convenient locations Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 10 10.0 10.0 13.0 2.00 15 15.0 15.0 28.0 3.00 30 30.0 30.0 58.0 4.00 26 26.0 26.0 84.0 5.00 16 16.0 16.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 The locations of the stores of M&S are mainly setup based on the transportation facilities and the environment of the market. The company ensures that the process of supplying products to the store is a primary factor in making the decisions for the store locations and hence customer convenience may suffer as a result Goldstein (2009). In response to the above question, 35% stayed neutral and 13% disapproved of the convenience of the store locations of M&S. Although 36% also agreed to the fact but that can be because of the delivery and collection service of M&S. 7.0 How will you rate M&S? Excellent Excellence Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 7 7.0 7.0 10.0 2.00 18 18.0 18.0 28.0 3.00 25 25.0 25.0 53.0 4.00 29 29.0 29.0 82.0 5.00 18 18.0 18.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 In terms of brand, 47% of the respondents considered that M&S was an excellent brand while there was also a 10% denial of the statement. The brand reputation of M&S mainly relies on the quality of their products and services as the pricing is a bit high in comparison to other firms and the environmental concerns of the company has also been under scrutiny (Kapferer, 2008). Hence the disapproval of M&S as excellent brand can be justified. Top Brand Top brands Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 11 11.0 11.0 16.0 2.00 13 13.0 13.0 29.0 3.00 22 22.0 22.0 51.0 4.00 28 28.0 28.0 79.0 5.00 21 21.0 21.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Considering the market standards and reports, M&S is yet to reach the position of the top brand in European market or the UK local market place. Firms such as Tesco, Sainsbury and ASDA have proved to better in their strategies (Winer, 2008). However, steady quality standards and improved product and service structure are improvements in M&S which can help them become the top brand in the market. From the perspectives of the participants, 49% consider them to be Top brand while51% are neutral and the remaining 9% disagreed to the notion. 8.0 Please provide your view of the following: Loyal to the brand Brand loyalty Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 7 6.9 7.0 11.0 2.00 21 20.8 21.0 32.0 3.00 32 31.7 32.0 64.0 4.00 22 21.8 22.0 86.0 5.00 14 13.9 14.0 100.0 Total 100 99.0 100.0 Missing System 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 In context of loyalty 36% are loyal to the brand while 53% are neutral and the remaining 11% disagreed to the statement. Considering the increasing competition in the retail segment of the business, it is difficult to generate and maintain the brand loyalty aspects of the business firms. First choice for clothing First choice clothing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 8 7.9 8.0 13.0 2.00 30 29.7 30.0 43.0 3.00 24 23.8 24.0 67.0 4.00 21 20.8 21.0 88.0 5.00 12 11.9 12.0 100.0 Total 100 99.0 100.0 Missing System 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 The response gathered in this statement was quite contradictory to the general belief. M&S is mostly known for their clothing segment and out of 100 respondents only 33 considered it for their first choice of clothing while the majority were neutral (54%) in their response. First choice for home products First choice home products Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 9 8.9 9.0 13.0 2.00 26 25.7 26.0 39.0 3.00 26 25.7 26.0 65.0 4.00 22 21.8 22.0 87.0 5.00 13 12.9 13.0 100.0 Total 100 99.0 100.0 Missing System 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 35% of the respondents considered M&S as their first choice for the home products which shows that the quality of the products and services of M&S does not only influence the decisions of the customers (Anderson and Kerr, 2008). The increased price of the products can be a reason behind the 52% neutral responses and the 13% denial of the notion. First choice for food products First choice food products Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 5 5.0 5.0 9.0 2.00 31 30.7 31.0 40.0 3.00 25 24.8 25.0 65.0 4.00 24 23.8 24.0 89.0 5.00 11 10.9 11.0 100.0 Total 100 99.0 100.0 Missing System 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 In context of food products, only 25% agreed to the given statement while 56% were neutral and 9% disapproved. This response also shows that the customers’ perception may not be the only factor in their decision making processes. As noticed earlier, M&S is known for their quality and yet in case of food products the customers are hesitant to provide them the first part (Fjermestad, 2006). Purchasing from M&S leads to pleasure and delight Pleasure delight Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 4 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.00 27 26.7 27.0 32.0 3.00 28 27.7 28.0 60.0 4.00 22 21.8 22.0 82.0 5.00 18 17.8 18.0 100.0 Total 100 99.0 100.0 Missing System 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 The shopping experience provided by M&S was the theme of this question. 40% were satisfied with the M&S experience while 51% were neutral which is quite satisfactory from the perspective of the company as well as the customers. According to Britain (2008), the experience and supported extended to the customers influence their future decisions and also increases the scope of return footfall in the store. Products and services offered are of quality standards Quality standards Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 8 7.9 8.0 9.0 2.00 26 25.7 26.0 35.0 3.00 25 24.8 25.0 60.0 4.00 23 22.8 23.0 83.0 5.00 17 16.8 17.0 100.0 Total 100 99.0 100.0 Missing System 1 1.0 Total 101 100.0 As reflected in the above questions regarding quality, in this question also the customers were satisfied with the level of quality of the products and service maintained by M&S. 40% strongly agreed while 51% were neutral and the number of negative answers were limited to 9%. M&S has continuously focused on the improving the value of the products and services for their customers and tried to reflect the individual customer needs in their customer offerings (Anderson and Cunningham, 2008). 9.0 What has been your interaction rate with M&S? Participated in surveys Survey Participation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 14 14.0 14.0 18.0 2.00 21 21.0 21.0 39.0 3.00 22 22.0 22.0 61.0 4.00 24 24.0 24.0 85.0 5.00 15 15.0 15.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Considering the basis of interaction of the respondents, 29% considered that the survey process conducted by M&S is helpful for them to know the brand and their offerings. Another 43% remained neutral to this answer and the remaining 18% did not take part in M&S surveys. Communicated with personnel of M&S Communicated Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.00 11 11.0 11.0 16.0 3.00 35 35.0 35.0 51.0 4.00 28 28.0 28.0 79.0 5.00 21 21.0 21.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 49% of the respondents stated that their interaction with M&S is mostly based on interactions with the personals of M&S. The support of the M&S staff has always been designed around the needs of the customers. The customer care department of the company has been segmented in various level based on the nature of the services provided and the individual requirements of the customers (Carpenter and Fairhurst, 2009). Provided information about service quality Service quality information Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 6 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.00 8 8.0 8.0 14.0 3.00 37 37.0 37.0 51.0 4.00 29 29.0 29.0 80.0 5.00 20 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 The information sharing process of M&S is performed in online and offline manner (Aaker, 2011). Based on the information of their services, 49% of the customers were satisfied with the information sharing process about the nature and extent of services being extended to the customers of the company. Only 5% of the respondents were not satisfied with the process. Provided information about product quality Product quality information Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.00 9 9.0 9.0 11.0 3.00 34 34.0 34.0 45.0 4.00 33 33.0 33.0 78.0 5.00 22 22.0 22.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 In context of the product based information of M&S, they employ both online and offline means for sharing product related information. Apart from banners and kiosks, M&S personnel are present to help their customers with their queries (Davis, 2010). 55% agreement to the notion is an evidence of the high quality or product information sharing of M&S. Assisted others at the time of making purchase Purchase assistance Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid .00 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.00 6 6.0 6.0 8.0 2.00 15 15.0 15.0 23.0 3.00 31 31.0 31.0 54.0 4.00 28 28.0 28.0 82.0 5.00 18 18.0 18.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 36% of the respondents agree that they receive proper assistance from the M&S executives while purchasing, while 46% stayed neutral in response to this question. The remaining 8% disagreed to the statement. The individual support provided by M&S has been often appreciated however the growing number of customers and products can sometime create chaos in the stores (Parameswaran and Jacob, 2011). Recommendations: The interpretation of the data collected in the study showed that respondents were quite satisfied with the service and product structure of M&S. It was noted in the response analysis that the respondents were fully satisfied with the quality of the service and products being provided by M&S. However other aspects of M&S received a mixed response such as environment consciousness, eco-friendliness and store locations. Based on this, it can be recommended that M&S should focus on reducing the environmental implications of their business activities. Implementing the triple bottom line concept can help them in associating their business functions with their corporate social responsibility and help M&S in designing a sustainable business process. Another critical point was the store locations of M&S which are generally made considering the present and future potential of the stores. As the company objectives are associated with the store locations, M&S can include the customer continence in their store location decision making process and consider them while selection of the location of the stores. Conclusion: The data analysis and interpretation process was performed with the help of SPSS software. The data analysis revealed that M&S has a strong focus on the quality of the products and services provided to their customers. However, other aspects related with the emotional relationship build-up of the company with their customers such as store locations or eco-friendliness are still not being appreciated by the customers. The recommendations made in the chapter are based on the findings of the study. Reference List Aaker, D.A., 2011. Building Strong Brands, 2nd ed. London: Simon & Schuster. Anderson, K. and Kerr, C., 2008. Customer satisfaction: tools, techniques, and formulas for success. 5th ed. London: Chapman and Hall. Anderson, W. and Cunningham, W.H., 2008. The socially conscious consumer, Journal of Marketing, 36, pp. 23-31. Bloemer, J. M. M. and Kasper, H. D. P., 2006. The Complex Relationship Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, pp. 311-29. Bottomley, P. P. and Holden, S., 2009. Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Journal of Marketing Research, 38, pp. 494–501 Britain, G., 2008. Consumer Choice: competition and prices. 5th ed. London: Routledge. Buckingham, I. P., 2011. Brand Champions: How Superheroes Bring Brands to Life. 3rd ed. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Carpenter, J. M. and Fairhurst, A., 2009. Consumer shopping value, satisfaction and loyalty for retail apparel brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9 (3), pp. 256-269. Davis, J. A., 2010. Competitive Success, How Branding Adds Value. 5th ed. London: Kogan Page. Dick, A. S. and Basu, K., 2007. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 22, pp.99–113. Fjermestad, J., 2006. Electronic Customer Relationship Management. 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins. Goldstein, S, D., 2009. Superior customer satisfaction and loyalty. 5th ed. London: Chapman and Hall. Kapferer, N. J., 2008. The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. 6th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall Companion. Page 263. Lehu, M. J., 2007. Branded Entertainment: Product Placement & Brand Strategy in the Entertainment Business. 5th ed. London: Chapman and Hall. Lo, A.S., Stalcup, L.D. and Lee, A., 2010. Customer relationship management for hotels in Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), pp. 139-159. Parameswaran, M. G. and Jacob, I., 2011. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. 7th ed. New York: Kaplan Publishing. Siddiqui, N., OMalley, A. and McCall, J. C., 2008. Retailer and consumer perceptions of online fashion retailers: Web design issues. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 7 (4), pp. 345-355. Weekes, T., 2008. Spending on clothing and attitudes to debt in the UK. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8 (1), pp. 113-122. Winer, R. S. (2008) "A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, pp. 250-256 Yoo, B. and Donthu, N., 2006. Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-based Brand Equity Scale, Journal of Business Research, 52(1), pp. 1-14 Read More