University branding: A myth or a reality

Iqbal, Muhammad Jawad; Rasli, Amran Bin Md.; Ibn-e-Hassan Rasli, Amran Bin Md. Article University branding: A myth or a reality Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Iqbal, Muhammad Jawad; Rasli, Amran Bin Md.; Ibn-e-Hassan Rasli, Amran Bin Md. (2012) : University branding: A myth or a reality, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, pp. 168-184 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/188050 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2012 Vol. 6 (1), 168-184 University Branding: A Myth or a Reality Muhammad Jawad Iqbal (Corresponding Author) PhD Scholar Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development (FPPSM) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Amran Bin Md. Rasli Professor, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development (FPPSM) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia Ibne Hassan PhD Scholar Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development (FPPSM) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia Abstract Every university needs a brand and an image that can be trusted and believed and that will differentiate it from others. University brand, in fact, is the perception and reputation developed in the minds of the people about the university or institution. It is the reaction appears in the minds of the people when they hear or see a name or symbol of some university or institute. This research aimed to identify key factors that are required to be taken care of while developing university branding strategy. For this research a deductive approach is adopted, as the main objective of this research is to investigate the influence of attributes like awareness, acceptance, and quality on brand image of universities, therefore, it is proposed to conduct semi structured interviews which are considered to be a most suitable for testing of influence of different attributes on brand image. The components used in the study are awareness, acceptance, prestige, incentives and quality. The result of the study shows that in the university selection decision, image of the university is the key determinant. The result also shows that the image of the university has four key constructing factors which are quality, prestige, financial incentives, and acceptance. Quality is found to be the strongest construct followed by prestige, acceptance and incentives. Keywords: Acceptance, Higher Education, Quality, Image, Prestige, Financial Incentives. 1. Introduction and Background Every university needs a brand and an image that can be trusted and believed and that will differentiate it from others (Parameswaran and Glowacka, 1995; Santovec, 2007). The image is vital (Trejo, 2008). It is necessary for every university to know what make them able to develop better linkages with stakeholders and the community (Stimpson, 2006). If the university management knows about themselves and what they can do for themselves, they can position themselves in the market as the best and can develop niche and this can add prestige to the universities. This can also help universities in knowing Iqbal et al 169 the customers more precisely (Stimpson, 2006). The concept of branding in the university has not fully been developed and demand more research for the advancement in the field. During this study, we found more of the literature relevant to business whereas very little came from the sources of higher education. In today’s business world branding is become a buzz word (Hall, 2008; Sanborn, 2008) There are universities who are unable get their brand such recognition which it deserved. They are not aware of the process that how they can increase the prestige of their institution by using branding (Stimpson, 2006). There are some who believes that the term branding is the most misused and overused word in the business of marketing (Miller & Muir, 2004; Stimpson, 2006). Researchers also reached to the agreement that for universities or educational institutions brand is neither a logo nor is a crest, although both are the part of the brand (Santovec, 2007; Temple, 2006). It is also not a motto or a slogan (Santovec, 2007). University brand, in fact, is the perception and reputation developed in the minds of the people about the university or institution. It is the reaction appears in the minds of the people when they hear or see a name or symbol of some university or institute (Clifton et al., 2003; Landrum et al., 1998; Marconi, 2000; Miller et al, 2004; Santovec, 2007; Sevier, 2001; Temple, 2006). Therefore branding can be considered one of the processes that can strengthen the universities by making them able to face the challenges in the volatile periods and also by making them able to grab the opportunities appear during this period. During the process of branding, organizations normally identify their strength and use it in the decision making process (Mariotti, 1999; Moore, 2004). The brand’s power most of the time increase the association of the customer with the product. Stronger the brand greater will be the association. Contrary to the production industry the trend of branding in service industry has not yet fully been explored (Ukpebor and Ipogah 2008). Prasad and Dev. (2000) in their study regarding service industry showed that the branding is the only criteria used by the customers to differentiate between organizations. In service sector firms name is the main brand (Low and Lamb 2000). The term branding is also getting importance in the business of higher education as the term ‘globalization’ has affected the education, and education is now become an internationally tradable good/service like others. This angle of understanding compelled the countries to develop such policies where the term of higher education is understood as a corporate term with the aim of growth in ‘market share’. Any service industry must identify the requirements of the potential customer and devised its product and service according to the needs of the customer (Harvey & Busher, 1996). Same is true for the education sector as well; as it is also a service industry with student clientele (Harvey & Busher, 1996; Mazzarol, 1998). Universities, therefore, must develop a clear understanding about what potential student is looking for (Cubillo, Sanchez & Cervino, 2006). Brand familiarity has got importance, especially, at the time of decision of attending the institute for education or for donation purposes. Sevier (2001) explains the importance of brand familiarity by giving the example of the students who when receive the letters from different universities, normally open the one which comes from the most familiar university. This clearly explains that a good brand have high respect (Hupp, 2007). University Branding: A Myth or a Reality 170 Universities all over the world are working very hard to build brand equity. University’s strong brand name can be established by providing quality services, creating an emotional link with students, unique set of communication and service. This research is, therefore, aimed to identify key factors that are required to be taken care of while developing university branding strategy. The result of this study could serve as a decision making tool to help the university management and other policy gurus in Malaysia and all over the world to maximize the value of universities by focusing on the branding of Universities. 2. Research Problem and Research Objectives The concept of global marketing has increased the competition among the different companies and this increasing competition has resulted in the focus on brand management. The fierce competition has made branding a top most differentiation technique for the product as well as for the service industry. In the higher education market, the top most priority of the universities and other HEI’s is the development of strong brand equity but attainment of this objective is the real task; as the services provided by all the higher education institutes are same in nature. Brand equity is, therefore, the only possible way for the clientele to differentiate one university from another (Sevier, 2001). During the literature review, it was observed that limited researches regarding university brand equity has been done. This has, therefore, generated a need to explore the concept of branding and to determine whether the university branding is a reality or a myth? Yoo et al. (2000) & (2001), Lin and Chang, (2003) has noticed that awareness, acceptance and quality played key role in developing the image of the product which in turn developed the clients purchase and re-purchase decision. They, therefore, identified these factors as a construct of brand equity. Therefore, the main objective of this research has also been developed on the same line which is, to check the influence of these dimensions i.e. brand awareness, brand acceptance and brand quality on brand image which in turn develop the brand equity of university. 3. Literature Review The concept of branding is not new. It is in use for many centuries. According to William (2002) due to the perceived risks attached with the purchase of services, consumers preferred to use such services which are familiar to them and which they can trust. Keeping this thing in mind, universities and governments in different parts of the world have started developing attractive policies, especially, based on the provision of quality education in neat, clean and safe environment. Globalization has made the education as a tradable commodity. Therefore, Higher education institutes has started marketing activities to position themselves in the global market while analyzing their strengths and weaknesses and identifying the unique selling points. For this purpose they are focusing on “Brand Equity Development” to get prominent position in the global market. Muller and woods (1994) while talking about the brand management, emphasize the importance of creation of brand image and the reliability of brand name in the service industry. In another study they recommended that for strong brand equity, service brand should concentrate on three main issues i.e. Quality, Service delivery and Image (Muller and wood, 1998). They further suggested that quality, service delivery and image collectively helped in developing the brand’s trustworthiness. Iqbal et al 171 In order to understand the consumer’s perception of brand, it is imperative to understand the consumer behavior. Belch and Belch (2004) while defining the consumer behavior said that it is a process and actions people took on when they are in the process of search, select, purchase, use, evaluate and dispose of some product or service in order to get satisfaction for fulfillment of their desires. Ugala, (2001), has identified that there are two types of behaviors a consumer shows, one is cognitive and the other is experience based behavior. Dalqvist and Linde (2002) typified behavior in four categories, rational, learned, unconscious and social behavior. Kotler (1999) has developed a five steps consumer decision process for making some purchases. Figure 1: Buying decision process; Source: Kotler et al (1999) pg.254 He also discussed that it is not necessary that consumer always adopt all the stages while making day to day decisions. However, while making some complex decision, consumers normally passed all of the five stages. Same is true in case of University Selection Decision. Bone (2009) during his study regarding the choice of the university stated that the decision making in university selection involved a complex process. So as per his findings university selection decision involved all the five steps of Kotler’s purchase decision model. Cubillo, Sanchez and Cervino, (2006) has also identified the same. This has established the fact that the university selection is a complex decision which is made after very careful evaluation of alternatives. Chen, (2006) is of the view that the graduate students while making university selection decision gave maximum importance to the “University” and then to the programs offered by the university. Pimpa, (2003) also has the same point of view. Similarly, according to Binsardi & Ekwulugo, (2003); Chen Zimitat, (2006); Chen (2006);Cubillo et al., (2006); Mazzarol & Soutar, (2002); Shah & Laino, (2006); Bone (2009), at the time of decision, the prospect student consider several things like country of destination, institute itself, country’s environment, program quality, safety etc. However, the image and ranking of the university play the decisive role during this decision making process. This shows that the brand equity and its recognition obtained great importance for most of the universities around the world especially due to the increasing trend of internationalization. If the image of the university is properly managed, it will provide the competitive edge to that university. The basic attributes attached with the university are getting much importance because these attributes formulate the brand which is now commonly used as differentiating tools among competitors. Aaker (1991) was of the view that the brand equity is the product of perceived qualities, brand loyalty, brand awareness and brand image. Similarly, Keller (1993) had discussed two dimensions of brand equity, one is brand knowledge and the other is brand awareness. Cob-walgren et al (1995) used the same components i.e. quality, awareness, and brand image which were used by Aker (1991) to measure brand equity. Prasad and Dev (2000) also used the same attributes in their study as identified by Aaker, (1991). Same was done by Lamb and Low Jr. (2000). Yoo et al University Branding: A Myth or a Reality 172 (2000) in their research also used the same three components of Aaker (1991). Cobbwalgren et al. (1995), in their research presented a perceptual measure used to measure the customer based brand equity. They used the concept given by Aaker, 1991. Their study showed that the brand equity has a direct relation with the consumer behavior. Higher the brand equity higher will be the consumer’s preferences and purchase Intentions. Therefore, in our study we used the attributes such as brand awareness, brand acceptance, and brand quality to determine the brand image which is the main constituent of brand equity of the university. 3.1 Awareness Keller (2003) explained brand awareness is developed due to the repeated exposure of the product or service. Hearing, seeing, or thinking about some specific brand could be the factors involved in developing the awareness and this may result in sticking of brand into the memory of the customer. Keller 1993 while following Aaker, 1991 has considered brand awareness as a key attribute in brand equity. He also recognized the brand awareness as a combined effect of brand recognition and top of mind awareness (TOMA). Hoyer and brown (1990), Lin and Chang (2003), Keller (2003) Jiang (2004) observed that brand recognition plays an important role in influencing consumer’s choice. Therefore, keeping its importance in mind, we conceptualize that the brand awareness is the product of brand recognition and top of mind and once the awareness for brand has been developed, it ensures the acceptance among the prospective clients which leads towards the greater market share. Therefore, due to its importance for enhancing the brand acceptance through increased market share and developing the brand image, we can conclude that the brand recognition and top of mind (TOMA) creates awareness, awareness develops acceptance which ultimately resulted in creating brand image. Figure 2: Awareness and acceptance process 3.2 Quality Brunsø et al., (2005) and Nadim & Noorjahan (2009) while discussing the quality explained that the product/service quality can be judged in two different perspectives: the objective quality and the perceived quality. Objective quality is that which can be checked technically, measured, and verified whereas the perceived quality is the expectation of product/service perceived by the consumer. Aaker 1993, 1996 and 1998, defined the quality perceived by the customer as one aspect of brand equity because according to him it is direct relation with the readiness to pay a higher price and purchase intention. Low and Lamb 2000 were come up with the opinion that the perceived quality developed the brand superiority perception. Similarly Szymanski and Henard (2001) also considered perceived quality as one of the factor which helped in developing a satisfactory purchase decision. Awareness Acceptance Recognition Top of Mind Iqbal et al 173 Taylor and Baker (1994) also hypothesized that satisfaction and perceived quality has a positive relation with intention to purchase. Like the other industries, the issue of provision of quality services in universities is also gaining more and more attention of the researchers of higher education sector (De jager and Gbadamosi, 2010). Researchers like Kwan and Ng, (1999), Cloete and Bunting (2000), Abouchedid and Nasser, (2002), Chua, (2004), Telford and Masson, (2005), De Jager, (2006), Oliveira-Brachado and Marques, (2007); Pareda et al. (2007), Srikantham and Dalrymple, (2007); and Voss et al. (2007) have discussed the importance of service quality in the higher education sector. They recognized the enhanced service quality performance as the only tool in the industry of higher education which attracts and retains student clientele. In this perspective, Bitner, et al., 2000 identified two satisfaction factors; one is overall satisfaction and the other is service encounter satisfaction. The overall satisfaction is the relationship specific whereas the service encounter is transaction–specific. Figure 3: Constructs for Perceived Quality Therefore, in light of above discussion we may consider perceived quality as one of the construct of our study as it create a perception of superiority of brand which is helpful in differentiating a brand from the other. 3.3 University Image (Brand Association) Brand image has nothing to do with the product or service features, product or service technology or the product or service in actual, it is actually developed through knowledge provided to customer about the product or service. In case of higher education sector the image of the institute is important especially for the external customers like parents, friends, industry etc. who have influence on the choice decision of the students. Therefore, a good image is a top branding tool in case of higher education industry. Cubillo et al., (2006), has suggested that in the service industry the image of institution is developed by the institutional prestige and financial incentives. According to Engel and Miniard, (1993) the image of any brand is developed due to the collective impact of brand association and consumer’s perception. Beckwith & Leman, (1975); Hill & Neeley, (1988); Levitt, (1986); Nicholls et al., (1995) while discussing the image of the higher education institute discussed that the reputation of university is the most important factor for selection decision especially, in the absence of experience as it reduced the perceived risk. For good image, quality and recognition are the best sources of competitive advantage (Aaker, 1989; Fombrun, 1996. Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). Therefore, as proposed by Cubillo et al. (2006) along with prestige and financial incentive, we also used quality and acceptance as the construct of image in our study. Most importantly it can be said that the branding in service industry helped in reducing perceived risks associated with the purchase decision and also helped in reducing the search cost. The above literature helped us in establishing the fact that the awareness creates acceptance and acceptance of any brand in combination with quality develop a Overall Satisfaction Service Encounter Perceived Quality University Branding: A Myth or a Reality 174 power full brand image and the power full image than create the brand equity in the service industry. Brands are considered important as they help the customer to narrow down the choices (Marriott, 1999) whereas, the big brands are normally considered as the only choice in some specific need (Sevier, 2001, p. 79; Sevier, 2002). Similarly, brand recognition and reputation is also very important for universities as they require recognition for their well doing. Every university is working hard to get some prestige which is something everybody hopes to attain. According to temple (2006) "the brand should meet consumers' psychological needs through the values which they come to believe the brand embodies". During the mid 80’s Park, Maclnnis, and Jaworski (1986) talked about the needs that have influence in consumers brand selection. These are (1) functional needs, (2) symbolic needs, and (3) experiential needs. Functional needs provide solution to any problem (Park, Maclnnis, and Jaworski, 1986). In case of university it will be the service quality. Symbolic needs respond the costumer’s need to be linked with some particular group (Park et al., 1986, Marconi, 2000). In case of university it would be the image developed through awareness and acceptance. Experiential needs normally provide satisfaction for internal pleasure desires (Park, Maclnnis, and Jaworski, 1986). For university we can consider brand equity as experiential need. After a detailed study, we have been able to develop a connection among the views of different researchers with reference to the brand equity. The literature review has revealed that there is a strong relationship between the brand equity, brand image, brand association, brand awareness and brand quality. High level of awareness means high acceptance, therefore, high acceptance along with high perception of quality creates strong affiliation with the brand i.e. strong image and Positive image of the brand will help in developing favorable perceptions means greater brand equity. Therefore, in order to check the existence of association between the university brand equity and its attributes i.e. university brand awareness/acceptance, university brand image and university service quality, we used the same components as were used by Aker first in 1991 and later on in 1996 i.e. brand acceptance/awareness, perceived quality and brand association. Due to the similarity in the definition we replace brand association with brand image. Awareness Acceptance Image Prestige Incentives Quality Top of Mind Recognition Overall Satisfaction Service Encountered Satisfaction Iqbal et al 175 Figure 4: Model for University Branding 4. Methodology As discussed by Saunder et al (2003), for research purpose we normally adopt two approaches, one is deductive approach and the other is inductive approach. For this research we use deductive approach. As, the main objective of this research is to investigate the influence of attributes like awareness, acceptance, and quality on brand image of universities, therefore, after a thorough search it is proposed to conduct semi structured interviews which are considered to be a most suitable for testing of influence of different attributes on brand image. The components used in the study are awareness, acceptance, prestige, incentives and quality. 5. Analysis A sample of 160 respondents was selected to check whether the constructs being developed play any role in image development or not. For this purpose the respondents from Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Yaman, Somalia, Turkey etc. were interviewed. Forty seven percent female students and 53 percent male students were participated in the interview session. Interviews were conducted using Delphi Technique. Total 144 students participated in the interview session. Out of total 144 participants, 128 interviewees provided complete information. This showed that about 80% of the enquiries were got a complete response which is quite a success. The internal consistency was determined by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The overall reliability value for the variables was found to be 0.889 which shows that the variables tested in the study were internally consistent. The interview questions consist of five parts. 1st part was asked to find out the role of awareness in image development of the university. The 2nd part was asked to find out the whether the ‘acceptance’ has some role in image development. Whereas, 3rd and 4th part of the interview questions were asked to check the importance of incentives and university prestige for image. The 5th and final part was used to find out that what percentage of respondents will give importance to university quality as a construct of image of the university. In order to consider the influence of university image on our intent to determine a top rank, generally ranking is used. The same idea has been adopted in our study and we ranked different attributes using Kendall’s W Ranks. University Branding: A Myth or a Reality 182 Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand association. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(6) 350-368. Lin, M.Y. and Chang, L.H. (2003). Determinant of habitual behavior for national and leading brands in China. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(2 & 3), 94107. Levitt, T. (1986). The Marketing Imagination. New York: The Free Press. Miller, J. and Muir, D. (2004). The business of brands. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Marconi, J. (2000). The Brand Marketing Book: creating, managing and extending the value of your brand. Chicago, IL: NTC Contemporary Publishing. Mariotti, J.L. (1999). Smart things to know about brands and branding. Dover, NH: Capstone US. Moore, R.M. (2004). The rising tide: "branding" and the academic marketplace. Change, 36, 56-61. Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Education Management, 12(4), 163-175. Muller, C.C. and Woods, R.H. (1994). An expected restaurant typology. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 35(3), 27-37. Muller, C.C. (1998). Endorsed branding. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 90-106. Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G.N. (2002). The push-pull factors influencing international student selection of education destination. International Journal of Education Management, 6(2), 82-90. Mariotti, J.L. (1999). Smart things to know about brands & branding. Dover, NH: Capstone US. Marconi, J. (2000). The Brand Marketing Book: Creating, managing and extending the value of your brand. Chicago, IL: NTC Contemporary Publishing. Nadim, J. and Noorjahan, P. (2009). The relationship between brand affect, Brand quality, and customers’ brand Extension attitude: exploring the mediating role of Customer loyalty. The Cambodian Management Journal, 1(1), 20-34. Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., & Sims, D. (1995). Marketing higher education: The MBA experience. International Journal of Education Management, 9(2), 31-38. Parameswaran, R. and Glowacka, A.E. (1995). University Image; An information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41-46 Prasad, k. and Dev, C.S. (2000). Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing performance. Cornell Hotel And Restaurant Administration Quartely, 41(3), 22-31. Pimpa, N. (2003). The influence of family on Thai students’ choice of internatonal education. International Journal of Education Management, 17(5), 211-219 Iqbal et al 183 Pareda, M., Airey, D.W. and Bennett, M. (2007). Service quality in overseas education: The experience of overseas students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6(2), 55-67. Pitta, D.A. and Katsanis, L.P. (1995). Understanding Brand Equity for Successful Brand Extensions” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 51-64. Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept Image Management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135-145. Santovec, M.L. (2007). How three colleges benefited from branding? Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 21(5), 8-8. Stimpson, C.R. (2006). Asserting our "Brand". Change, 38, 30-35. Sanborn, M. (2008). The encore effect: How to achieve remarkable performance in anything you do. New York: Doubleday. Sevier, R.A. (2001). Brand as relevance. The Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 77-96. Shah, A. and Laino, H. (2006). Marketing a US university to international students: Which approach is beststandardization, adaption, or contingency? An investigation of consumer need in seven countries. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 16(1), 124. Syzmanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001). Customer satisfaction; a Meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 29(1), 16-35. Srikantham, G. and Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 126-136. Srikatanyoo. N., and Gnoth, J. (2002). National Branding; Country image and international tertiary education. Brand Management, 10(2), 139-146. Trejo, F. (2008, October 5).'Brands' make cities distinct. The Dallas Morning News, IB, 16B. Temple, P. (2006). Branding higher education: illusion or reality? Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 10, 15-19. Taylor, S.A. and Baker T.L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers´ purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70, 163-178. Telford, R. and Masson, R. (2005). The congruence of quality values in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), 107-119. Ukpebor, P. and Ipogah, B. (2008). A Study to Indicate the Importance of Consumer Based-Brand Equity on Consumer Perception of Brand. (A Case Study of Fast Food Restaurants). Blekinge Institute of Technology. Uggla, H. (2001). Organization av varumänke. Malmo, liber economi. Voss, R., Gruber, T. and Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of students’ expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959. University Branding: A Myth or a Reality 184 Williams, A. (2002). Understanding the Hospitality Consumer, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000). An examination of Marketing mix elements of brand equity. Academy of Marketing Sciences, 28(2),194-211.