Customer-Based brand equity drivers: A leading brand of beer in Estonia

Coudounaris, Dafnis N.; Björk, Peter; Mets, Tõnis; Asadli, Rustam; Bujac, Andreea I. Article Customer-Based brand equity drivers: A leading brand of beer in Estonia Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Coudounaris, Dafnis N.; Björk, Peter; Mets, Tõnis; Asadli, Rustam; Bujac, Andreea I. (2024) : Customer-Based brand equity drivers: A leading brand of beer in Estonia, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 1-40, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040061 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320884 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/4.0/ Citation: Coudounaris, Dafnis N., Peter Björk, Tõnis Mets, Rustam Asadli, and Andreea I. Bujac. 2024. Customer-Based Brand Equity Drivers: A Leading Brand of Beer in Estonia. Administrative Sciences 14: 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci 14040061 Received: 14 June 2023 Revised: 20 February 2024 Accepted: 7 March 2024 Published: 22 March 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Customer-Based Brand Equity Drivers: A Leading Brand of Beer in Estonia Dafnis N. Coudounaris 1,2,* , Peter Björk 1, Tõnis Mets 3, Rustam Asadli 3and Andreea I. Bujac 4,5 1Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, 65101 Vaasa, Finland; peter[email protected] 2Global Online MBA Programmes, University of London, London WC1E 7HU, UK 3School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, 51009 Tartu, Estonia; [email protected] (T.M.); [email protected] (R.A.) 4Department of Business and Sustainability, University of Southern Denmark, 6000 Kolding, Denmark; [email protected] 5Aalborg University Business School, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Based on the trust/commitment theory and the customer-based brand equity theory, this study aims to ascertain which of the brand equity drivers of A. Le Coq beer have an impact on attachment and its overall brand equity in the Estonian brewery market. In order to achieve this goal, an empirical study was conducted based on the 17 customer-based/consumer-based brand equity models: the 15 brand equity models, including the beer/beverage brand equity models, the 2 internal brand equity models, as well as 3 other related models. The study utilised a sample of convenience of 120 University of Tartu students. The questionnaire was placed on Google’s online survey administration service. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through AMOS29 was used for testing the fit of the model and covariances (through AMOS29) were used for testing the hypotheses. Additionally, t-test analysis was used for the differences in the means between the demographic characteristics and the items of the model. The results show that brand meaning has a strong positive effect on attachment strength, which significantly influences relationship factors—commitment, trust, and satisfaction. Another major finding is that the relationship factors—commitment, trust, and satisfaction—play a significant role in the development of the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. This study provides useful insights for brewery marketing managers by exploiting the strong positive relationships found between beer brand equity drivers, such as the strong positive relationships found within consumers of beer, i.e., the relationships between brand reputation and brand image, brand meaning and attachment strength, attachment strength and commitment, attachment strength and satisfaction, attachment strength and trust, satisfaction and brand equity, commitment and brand equity, and trust and brand equity. This finding contributes to the literature on brand equity related to the Estonian environment. Five differences in demographic characteristics seem to play a role in designing strategies by the management teams of different brands for increasing the consumption of their competing brands of beer. A replication of a model previously used for a non-product is part of the novelty of this paper. In addition, all the examined relationships are found to be positive and significant, which provides a contribution to the existing literature. Keywords: brand equity; theory of trust/commitment; theory of customer-based brand equity; brewery sector; A. Le Coq brand of beer; Estonia 1. Introduction Although customer-based brand equity drivers have attracted a lot of attention from scholars in recent years, the amount of research which analyses the impact of brand equity components on overall brand equity based on empirical data is quite different. One particular study was conducted by Aaker (1996, p. 118), who measured brand equity across products and markets and concluded that brand equity consisted of loyalty (price Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040061 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 2 of 40 premium and satisfaction/loyalty among those who have used the brand), perceived quality/leadership (perceived quality and leadership), associations/differentiation (perceived value, personality, organisation, and differentiation), awareness (brand awareness), and market behaviour (market share and price and distribution indices). Park et al. (2010, p. 33) showed “the uniquely strong effects of brand attachment”, and, later, this paper was established as the main reference for the brand attachment construct. Allaway et al. (2011, Table 15, p. 198) developed customer-based brand equity drivers in the supermarket industry, which consisted of effort, service level, product, programme prices, layout location, and community. Furthermore, Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) constructed, advanced, and empirically tested the customer-based brand equity of professors. Both customer-based brand equity models by Dennis et al. (2016), who subsequently investigated the brand equity drivers of a chosen higher education institute (HEI), and Jillapalli and Jillapalli’s (2014) customer-based brand equity model for professors are considered as starting points for this research. Finally, Keller (2016) revealed other important branding topics, such as “understanding brand purpose, narratives, and story-telling, understanding brand architecture and brands more holistically, understanding how to develop timeless, inclusive brands, understanding how brand elements can work together, and understanding how to effectively and efficiently track brands” (Keller 2016, pp. 13–14). This study aims to ascertain whether the brand equity components of A. Le Coq beer have an impact on its overall brand equity in the Estonian brewery market. Regarding the research gaps of this study, our investigation is based on a single brand, specifically A. Le Coq beer, which is the leading brand in Estonia and in the Baltic countries. A previous empirical investigation of the antecedents of brand equity in the beverage industry in Turkey (Atilgan et al. 2005) found only the relationship between perceived quality and brand equity to be significant. Moreover, it is worth mentioning the two previous studies focusing on CEE’s brewing industry by Larimo et al. (2006) and Larimo et al. (2011). Another study focused on the Estonian beer market was performed by Larimo et al. (2013), but not on the antecedents of the brand equity of beers in Estonia. Therefore, the main research gap of the current study is to empirically investigate the antecedents of the brand equity of the A. Le Coq brand of beer in Estonia. Moreover, there are five studies on the dimensions of beer brand equity in different countries, such as in Thailand by Aimkij and Mujtaba (2010), in Spain by Porral et al. (2013), in Uganda by Agaba and Emenike (2019), in Nigeria by Odeleye (2021), and in Italy by Francioni et al. (2022). The study by Agaba and Emenike (2019) tested the five dimensions of brand equity introduced by Aaker (1991), including perceived quality, brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty, and other proprietary brand assets, in a regression analysis. Both studies by Atilgan et al. (2005, p. 246) and Porral et al. (2013, p. 86) using structural equation modelling empirically tested the four antecedents of beer brand equity, namely, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand associations. The study by Francioni et al. (2022, p. 510) used structural equation modelling to test three antecedents of overall brand equity, namely, brand awareness/associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. The three studies by Atilgan et al. (2005), Porral et al. (2013), and Francioni et al. (2022) showed that the impact of brand loyalty to brand equity was important, significant, and positive. Bearing in mind these results, the present study uses the internal brand equity model by Dennis et al. (2016) to empirically test the antecedents of the beer brand equity of A. Le Coq by utilising the structural equation modelling of the CFA. Through these investigations, competing brands of beer can find a lot of interesting results when modifying their strategy in these markets. None of the existing research has focused on the successful brand of A. Le Coq beer in the Estonian market and/or in Baltic countries. Beer has become the most popular alcoholic beverage in Estonia, where its consumption was 80 million litres in 2018 or the per capita consumption was 60.51 litres in 2018 (based on the total population of Estonia in 2018—https://www.worldometers.info/worldpopulation/estonia-population/), which was higher than the EU-27 average (Brewers of Europe 2020). Estonia held second place in the Baltic Sea region and outranked Finland in Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 3 of 40 beer consumption in 2016 (Brewers of Europe 2020). As reported by the Brewers of Europe, in 2018, 93.5 million litres of beer was consumed in Estonia, which was 90.5 million and 88.8 million litres of beer in 2017 and 2016, respectively. The per capita consumption of beer in Estonia has remained quite stable over the years between 2015 and 2018, with around 81 million litres of beer on average (Brewers of Europe 2020). The Estonian brewery market is the smallest both in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and is highly concentrated, with two major players—A. Le Coq and Saku—together possessing around 80 percent of the market share (Larimo et al. 2013). Market research by Williams and Marshall Strategy 2020 indicates that the beer market in Estonia, which has a high degree of competition, was worth USD 269 million in 2014. Recent market trends indicate that the local beer market is expanding, with the number of local microbreweries increasing by around 20 percent per year (Invest in Estonia 2019). Even though the market share of these microbreweries is only around 1.5% of the overall Estonian beer market, they can still trigger competition in the market, and thus benefit customers in the long run (Invest in Estonia 2019). A. Le Coq has survived already for more than 200 years and through many wars. During this period, A. Le Coq invested a lot into new technology, innovation, and machinery. Therefore, it can be called a sustainable brewery, managing the two world wars, Russian rule, and, later, the difficult transition years after the new independence in 1991. The A. Le Coq brewery received its name from Albert Le Coq, whose roots historically go back to Germany and England. Imperial Stout beer export from London to St. Petersburg was replaced by production in the then Russian Tsarist province of Tartu, Estonia, in 1913 (Cornell 2017). With the independence of Estonia in 1918, A. Le Coq’s market became Estonia. Having survived Soviet annexation in 1940, German occupation in 1941–1944, and Soviet rule again, the former name of the state-owned brewery subsequently disappeared from use. When Estonia regained its independence in 1991, the state-owned brewery was soon afterwards privatised, in 1995. Since 1997, A. Le Coq has belonged to the Olvi Group (Finland) (Cornell 2017). Other sister companies under their local names in the Baltics also belong to the same group. The trademark of the brewery A. Le Coq was restored in 1999. Soft drinks and mainly light beer are now produced. The annual sales volume is close to one hundred million euros. Exports account for approximately a quarter of A. Le Coq’s production (A. Le Coq 2021). Even though beer has maintained its leadership position as the most popular alcoholic beverage in Estonia, there is a lack of academic research on beer brand value from the customer’s perspective. A case study conducted by Larimo et al. (2013) investigated the factors that affect the market share of Estonian breweries, mainly concentrating on companies’ marketing strategies and discussing their marketing-mix activities. At the same time, it must be taken into consideration that consumers’ purchasing behaviour is strongly affected not only by the price or quality of a product, but also its brand equity (Porral et al. 2013). Therefore, investigating the customer-based brand equity drivers of A. Le Coq beer will lead to insightful findings. The acquisition of A. Le Coq in 1995 by the Finnish company Olvi Oyj brought back not only the company’s trademark, which had been changed to Tartu Õlletehas during the Soviet era, but also its heydays, which then seemed far away because of a long period of unsuccessful privatisation attempts. This handover was considered a milestone for A. Le Coq, since it played a major role in regaining its market share and competitiveness. As a result of immediate investments by the parent company, Olvi Oyj, beer production capacity hit 30 million litres in 1999, up from 13.5 million litres in 1995 before the acquisition (Larimo et al. 2013). Therefore, the reason behind the selection of A. Le Coq for the present study is the company’s long-term existence of more than two centuries, its strong reputation for being the most innovative beer manufacturer, and being the market leader in Estonia. However, in this paper, the authors concentrate solely on the brewery side of A. Le Coq, and the Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 4 of 40 findings do not have relevance to the corporate brand of A. Le Coq and other individual brands of A. Le Coq for different types of products. According to Larimo et al. (2011), “CEE has played a significant role in the growth strategies of European breweries. This process has been largely helped by the economic and political changes taking place in the region since 1989” (Larimo et al. 2011, p. 89). Furthermore, the dramatic increase in the consumption of beer after the collapse of the USSR in Central–Eastern Europe (see Larimo et al. 2006, Table II, p. 374), specifically in Estonia, has helped A. Le Coq to increase its production of beer alongside the European brands which entered the country. The following two research questions are set for this study: (i) What are the brand equity drivers of a beer brand, i.e., A. Le Coq beer? and (ii) Which are the significant and important relationships? In order to answer the above research questions, an empirical study was conducted based on Jillapalli and Jillapalli’s (2014) and Dennis et al.’s (2016) customer-based brand equity models. The objectives of this paper were firstly to compare the possible differences between different segments of the sample. Secondly, by performing a regression analysis, we unveil the relationships between brand equity components and the formation of the brand equity of a beer brand, and indicate whether these relationships are significant or not. Thirdly, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach was employed for testing the badness-of-fit of the model to the data and evaluating the reliability versus the validity. This research contributes to the existing literature on beer brand equity, and specifically on the internal brand equity. The purpose of this study is to explore the significant and important factors of brand equity in the beer industry in Estonia. In particular, we focused on the A. Le Coq brand in the Estonian market, and we have added valuable insights to the current body of knowledge in this field. The management team of A. Le Coq beer brand should think more constructively about how to improve the customer’s commitment to, trust in, and satisfaction with the A. Le Coq beer brand. One can think that trust interlinks with commitment, and there are ways to boost this relationship by advertising within the relationships of the attachment strength–commitment–trust–satisfaction–beer brand equity of A. Le Coq. This study reveals that there are important, positive, and significant relationships between brand reputation and brand meaning, trust and beer brand equity, commitment and beer brand equity, and satisfaction and beer brand equity. This study shows the importance of the four antecedents of attachment strength, feelings towards the beer brand, commitment/trust relationship of consumers towards the beer brand, and consumers’ satisfaction with the beer brand and their important, positive, and significant relationships towards the beer brand equity. In addition, this research tests the ecological validity of the customer-based brand equity model devised by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) in order to see whether the results would hold in a different context—the Estonian brewery market. Since a case study approach is employed for the example of A. Le Coq, this research contributes to the scarcely investigated area of the brand equity of breweries, as well as providing practical implications for brewery marketing managers, such as employing policies with useful insights into the development of strong positive relationships between some customerbased brand equity drivers. Additionally, a further contribution of this study lies in the fact that it uses established constructs from other contexts—specifically, measuring both the brand equity of universities, Dennis et al. (2016), and the brand equity of professors, Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014)—and transferring them to the case of A. Le Coq beer in Estonia. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. A literature review and conceptual model are presented and discussed in Section 2, where the main brand equity concepts are presented and hypotheses are introduced. Then, we explain the adopted methodology in Section 3, alongside data description and descriptive statistics. Section 4is dedicated to the findings and their interpretation. Moreover, Section 5discusses the findings and, in particular, that the tested model reveals some internal strong positive relationships that managers should exploit. Finally, the paper concludes by providing an overview of the Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 5 of 40 study in Section 6, and theoretical and managerial implications together with limitations and future research are discussed. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Theoretical Background The theory of trust/commitment and the customer-based brand equity theory are used in this study. The study considers that brand equity is variable, depending on the trust/commitment relationship between the consumers of A. Le Coq beer and the specific firm. 2.1.1. Trust/Commitment Theory What is most important is how weak or strong the trust/commitment relationship is between consumers and the firm. In a study by Hwang and Burgers (1997, p. 70) on the properties of trust, it is pointed out that trust is “a necessary but not sufficient condition for cooperation and that trust supports cooperation through easing two very different types of risks, namely, the risk of being victimized and the risk of losing a trustworthy partner”. Additionally, the authors conclude that: “while trust eliminates all fear, full trust does not eliminate all greed” (Hwang and Burgers 1997, p. 70). Furthermore, Hwang (2006, pp. 423–38) argues that the trust and time horizon are important in a relationship. According to that study, the time horizon depends on the existing and future environmental parameters that the relationship may encounter. Morgan and Hunt (1994) were two of the authors who used the theory of trust to commitment affect, meaning that “successful relationship marketing requires relationship commitment and trust”, and they considered that “commitment and trust are key mediating variables in their model” (Morgan and Hunt 1994, p. 20). The model by Morgan and Hunt (1994) shows that there is a positive and significant effect of trust on commitment. According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust and commitment are at the centre of any successful relationship with customers. Similar relationships exist in another model developed by Money et al. (2007, Figure 2.4, p. 42), showing that non-material benefits are a mediator between commitment and trust. This study shows a positive and significant relationship between trust, non-material benefits, and commitment. In a recent study, Brown et al. (2019, p. 155) found that while trust enhances commitment, commitment can also erode trust. 2.1.2. Customer-Based Brand Equity Theory versus Consumer-Based Brand Theory In the existing literature of brand equity, there are two similar theories, namely, the customer-based brand equity theory and the consumer-based brand equity theory. The difference between them is that the customers are specific persons with some distinct characteristics, whereas the consumers include persons from a wide range of characteristics. The customer-based brand equity theory was developed by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). The conceptual model by Aaker (1991) includes four constructs/dimensions, namely, brand awareness, perceived brand quality, brand associations/differentiation, and brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is considered the most effective dimension for brand equity. Keller (1993), based on Aaker’s (1991) work, offers an alternative model. The conceptualisation of CBBE by Keller (2003) suggests that “customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer has a high level of awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favourable, and unique brand associations in memory” (Keller 2003, p. 67). Keller’s (2003) CBBE is defined as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing efforts of the brand”. Brand knowledge consists of two dimensions, namely, brand awareness and brand image. Park and Srinivasan (1994) argued that brand associations are the foundations of brand equity, and they divided brand equity into attribute-based and non-attribute-based factors. According to Erdem and Swait (1998), CBBE is defined as the value of a brand signal to consumers. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 6 of 40 In their model, Tolba and Hassan (2009) linked customer-based brand equity with brand market performance based on data from the US automotive market. Their findings showed that customer-based brand equity constructs correlated with brand market performance. From the point of view of Christodoulides and De Chernatony (2010), two research streams, namely, cognitive psychology and information economics, are complementary, and they proposed a definition of CBBE that contained elements from both, i.e., “a set of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors on the part of consumers that results in increased utility and allows a brand to earn greater volume or greater margins than it could without the brand name” (Christodoulides and De Chernatony 2010, p. 48). A study by Allaway et al. (2011) concluded that the drivers of customer-based brand equity for supermarkets are the service level, product quality and assortment, programmes for rewarding patronage, effort expended in keeping customers, prices, layout, and location. Furthermore, Nam et al. (2011) introduced a CBBE model for services based on seven dimensions, namely, physical quality, staff behaviour, ideal self-congruence, brand identification, lifestyle congruence, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty. This model excluded brand awareness, although previous models by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) used this dimension. In his reflections on customer-based brand equity, Keller (2016) put emphasis on the online and digital developments that have happened since his article in 1993 (Keller 1993). A study by Veloutsou et al. (2013) revealed a taxonomy of measures/dimensions for consumer-based brand equity among 13 studies during the period 1993–2010. Moreover, in a study by Christodoulides et al. (2015), the dimensions of CBBE, specifically, brand awareness, brand associations, and brand loyalty, could not always be clearly identified in all national contexts, i.e., the UK, Germany, and Greece. Furthermore, in another study by Pham (2019), companies in Vietnam showed that creating brand awareness, as well as brand loyalty and increasing perceived quality, were the most influential antecedents of the consumer-based brand equity of consumer goods retailers. According to Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2016), “Consumer-based brand equity focuses on consumers and represents positive business outcomes” (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016, p. 5479). The fit of their configural model (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016, Figure 1, p. 5481), which was composed of a brand building block, brand understanding block, brand relationship block, and CBBE, was not tested, and one wonders if it is practically possible to test it with one or many sets of data, and what the reliability and validity is of this model. Additionally, Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2019) tested, in Greece and Germany, their five-construct conceptual framework from 2016 (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016), including the brand building block (brand personality, brand nostalgia, brand heritage, brand quality, brand competitive advantage, and brand leadership), brand understanding block (brand awareness, brand associations, brand reputation, and brand self-connection), brand relationship block (brand trust, brand relevance, brand intimacy, and brand partner quality), overall brand equity, and consumers’ behavioural outcomes (intention to pay more for the brand, intention to recommend the brand, and intention to repurchase the brand). More recently, Veloutsou et al. (2020) tested their initial model from 2016 (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016) consisting of four dimensions, i.e., the brand building block (brand personality, brand nostalgia, brand heritage, brand quality, brand competitive advantage, and brand leadership), the brand understanding block (brand awareness, brand associations, brand reputation, and self-brand connection), the brand relationship block (brand trust, brand relevance, brand intimacy, and brand partner quality), and the overall brand equity, for unliked brands. Their findings showed that self-brand connection and partner quality were the key links for the deconstruction and restoration of CBBE. In recent years, various studies have investigated product categories and brands, and commented on consumer-based brand equity (Hakala et al. 2012;Çifci et al. 2016; Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016; and Sarker et al. 2021). Hakala et al. (2012) explored the relationships between consumers’ awareness of brands, attitudes related to brand equity, and changes in cultural context. They found that the four dimensions of brand equity co-vary depending on the cultural context. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 7 of 40 Çifci et al. (2016) compared the validity of the models of Yoo and Donthu (2001) and Nam et al. (2011) and found that Nam et al.’s (2011) model had better validity than Yoo and Donthu’s (2001) model. Kumar (2013) found that the brand experience dimensions (sensory, affective, behavioural, and intellectual) positively influenced the five brand equity dimensions (brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand trust, and brand loyalty). Finally, three authors, namely, Veloutsou, Christodoulides, and Chatzipanagiotou, have, in recent years, developed a five-construct model indicating the dimensions of CBBE (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016,2019;Veloutsou et al. 2020). It is worth noting that the study by Veloutsou et al. (2013) includes a table with the various dimensions of CBBE in relation to 13 studies during the period 1993–2010. 2.2. CBBE in Different Conceptual and Empirical Models during the Period 1993–2021 and Other Related Constructs Table 1reveals the evolution of customer-based brand equity versus consumer-based brand equity since the seminal work of Keller (1993) on customer-based brand equity. Among the 37 articles included in Table 1, there are at least 17 which refer to CBBE (see A/A: 1, 4–6, 8–13, 16, 18–19, 28–29, 33, and 37), 9 on brand equity (see A/A: 20–22, 25–26, 30, and 34–36), 5 on beer brand equity (2–3, 7, 17, and 23), 1 on beverage brand equity (31), 2 on internal brand equity (see A/A: 14 and 23), and 3 on related issues (see A/A: 15, 27, and 32). In our research in Table 1, there are four research streams, including studies on CBBE, internal brand equity, brand equity, and others on related issues. However, none of them have studied the successful brand of A. Le Coq in the Estonian market. Table 1. Determinants of models on customer-based brand equity versus consumer-based brand equity, internal brand equity, and related constructs during the period 1993–2023 *. A/A Authors and Year of Publication Name of Journal Sample Size Key Constructs in the Model Comments on the Model 1. Veloutsou (2023)Journal of Brand Management Conceptual Brand-building and audience response framework Consumer-based brand equity: brand-building block 2. Francioni et al. (2022) British Food Journal 401 Italian student beer consumers Dimensions of overall brand equity were brand awareness/associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. COO image, WOM, and brand distinctiveness were influencing brand awareness/associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty Brand loyalty was the most important dimension impacting significantly and positively on overall brand equity. The COO image was the most important construct, impacting significantly and positively on the perceived quality 3. Odeleye (2021) International Journal of Business, Economics & Management 175 employees of Guinness Nigeria Plc (100), Edo State (52), and Nigerian Breweries Plc (23) The effect of brand equity on marketing performance Brand loyalty and brand associations were positive and significant factors of marketing performance 4. Sarker et al. (2021) Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to airline passengers; 778 surveys were returned A consumer-based service brand equity (CBSBE) model in the airline industry Service brand equity Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 8 of 40 Table 1. Cont. A/A Authors and Year of Publication Name of Journal Sample Size Key Constructs in the Model Comments on the Model 5. Veloutsou et al. (2020) Journal of Business Research 300 questionnaires Consumer-based brand equity Fifteen measures of brand constructs, namely, brand heritage, brand personality, brand nostalgia, brand perceived quality, brand leadership, brand competitive advantage, brand awareness, brand associations, brand reputation, brand self-connection, partner quality, brand intimacy, brand trust, brand relevance, and overall brand equity 6. Zollo et al. (2020) Journal of Business Research 326 followers of luxury fashion brands on social media Social media marketing to consumer-based brand equity relationship Social media marketing activities, brand experience, and social media benefits associate with consumer-based brand equity 7. Agaba and Emenike (2019) International Journal of Management and Network Economics 312 respondents using different beer brands (Eagle, Nile, Club, Senator, and local beers) The effect of brand equity (brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and other proprietary brand assets) on competitive advantage Brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty have significant and positive effects on the competitive advantage 8. Iglesias et al. (2019) Journal of Business Research 1739 customers Sensory brand experience influence brand equity Sensory brand experience, customer affective commitment, and customer satisfaction associate with brand equity 9. Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2019) International Business Review Samples from Greece (312) and Germany (301) Consumer-based brand equity process in different countries The model includes a brand building block, a brand understanding block, a brand relationship block, the overall brand equity, the intention to pay more, brand recommendation, and the intention to repurchase 10. Augusto and Torres (2018) Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 280 A full mediation of consumer-based brand equity between brand attitude and the willingness of customers to pay premium prices The model includes brand attitude, electronic word-of-mouth, consumer–brand identification, and consumer-based brand equity, which influence the willingness to pay a premium price 11. Keller (2016) Academy of Marketing Science Review Conceptual Customer-based brand equity Brand resonance model: it includes, in a pyramid, resonance, judgments, feelings, performance, imagery, and salience Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 15 of 40 market. Similar research was conducted by Vinh (2017) in investigating the brand equity of Heineken in the Vietnamese beer market. The results from both studies seem to be in line with preceding ones, as the impact of brand equity dimensions on the overall brand equity is noteworthy. Vinh et al. (2019) investigated empirically the impact of social media communication on brand equity. According to them, brand awareness/association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty directly influence overall brand equity. Research by Berry (2000) on the branding activities in service companies stressed how crucial it is to have strong “brand equity”, as these companies do not have any tangible assets that can be used to communicate with potential consumers. The author demonstrated the brand-building efforts by using the “service-branding model”, which displays the building blocks of the service brand and how they are connected to each other, emphasising that brand building is not specific to only tangible products, whilst service companies benefit from branding activities in order to reach customers in providing them with assurance about the service. While most conceptual and empirical studies concentrate on the product side of the branding, some scholars try to draw attention to the concept of “corporate brand” (Balmer 1995;Hatch and Schultz 2001;Ind 1997;Syed Alwi and Da Silva 2007). The corporate brand seems to have a significant effect on the customer’s purchasing behaviour, where it can be a sign of high quality and satisfaction (Balmer and Gray 2003;Syed Alwi and Da Silva 2007). Syed Alwi and Da Syed Alwi and Da Silva (2007) conducted an empirical study in order to find out the locomotive factors of corporate brand image in the online environment by using De Chernatony and Christodoulides’s (2004) “triangle framework of corporate brands”. The authors summarise their research by emphasising the importance of personalisation and security, which can help the company to enhance the corporate brand image in an online setting, while also mentioning the notable impact of customer care and ease of use. In another study, Da Silva and Alwi (2008) revealed that corporate brand image can also have a direct positive relationship with consumer loyalty. Moreover, Sandbacka et al. (2013) discussed corporate brand-building activities in the business-to-business context, and modelled these activities in separate but related blocks. The main focus of the research (Sandbacka et al. 2013) is micro-industrial service companies, where the contribution and participation of all stakeholders in the corporate brand-building process are emphasised. Brand-building activities are applicable not only to products or services, but also people, events, political parties, places, or even concepts or visions (Kotler and Keller 2012;Kuhn et al. 2008). While most of the literature focuses on branding strategies in the business-to-consumer (B2C) context, Kuhn et al. (2008) endeavoured to uncover the importance of branding in a business-to-business setting and its feasibility. This paper attempts conceptualise the brand equity model in a B2B context using Keller’s (2003) customer-based brand equity model as a basis. We emphasise the observed differences in the purchasing behaviours of organisational buyers, and present a modified version of the CBBE model in order to contribute to branding efforts in the B2B context. In order to perform successful branding activities, managers should answer the following question: Will these activities positively affect the consumer’s purchasing behaviour, or will there be any significant improvement in the brand–buyer relationship? This is because not every brand responds in the same way to branding efforts depending on its category characteristic, as argued in the research by Fischer et al. (2010). These authors discuss whether branding-making activities hold the same degree of importance for every brand, and meanwhile examine their (referring to brand-making activities) impact on the company’s economic situation. While explaining why brands are important for both consumer and company, two elements are emphasised: the brand’s risk reduction and self-expression aspects. Fischer et al. (2010) suggest a new conceptual framework, namely, BRiC (brand relevance in category), and strengthen it with empirical data relevant for 20 different product categories. Based on the findings, some managerial recommendations are set out that can be beneficial for positioning the company’s brand-building efforts. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 16 of 40 2.4. Hypotheses Building and the Conceptual Model The presented conceptual model for unveiling the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer, which is based on the study by Dennis et al. (2016) and partly on Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014), contains 12 hypotheses and 9 constructs. Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) built this conceptual model on the basis of Keller’s CBBE model (Keller 1993,2001) and relationship marketing theory, and performed it in the context of professor brands in order to elicit its antecedents and the relationships between brand characteristics. In the research of this study, we utilise an adaptation of this conceptual model by Dennis et al. (2016), where the brand characteristics—brand image, brand meaning, and brand identity—are added as antecedents of the attachment strength and emphasise the impact of reputation on brand characteristics. Of course, the model by Dennis et al. (2016) was not assessed on products. However, our study adapted the model of Dennis et al. (2016) on the product of the leading brand of beer in the Estonian market. Also, the connections between the attachment strength and relationship factors, namely, commitment, trust, and satisfaction, are depicted in our conceptual model and are easy to discern. The conceptual model shown in Figure 1is finalised by displaying the effect of the relationship factors on the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 42 Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model of brand equity of A. Le Coq beer—adapted from the study by Dennis et al. (2016, p. 3051). 2.4.1. The Impact of Reputation on Brand Characteristics Reputation can be defined as a favourable view that customers hold, where they differentiate a certain brand from another by evaluating its overall value and utility (Bhattacharya and Elsbach 2002; Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014). Roper and Fill (2012) explain reputation as a summary that combines various views and perceptions shared by different people. In other words, brand reputation can be seen as an important indicator that displays how well the brand performs in the market in comparison with its competitors (Dennis et al. 2016). Dennis et al. (2016) found positive effects of reputation to brand image, brand meaning, and brand identity. It is worth mentioning that Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) found that reputation had a strong positive effect on brand meaning. Chaudhuri (2002) emphasises the importance of brand reputation and refers to it as an important tool, since it plays an immense role in making strategic managerial decisions. It is mentioned that cultivating a positive reputation is vital in order to become successful and profitable in the market (Herbig and Milewicz 1993) whilst requiring proper branding and overall marketing activities. Reputation has an impact on the development of brand image by creating brand awareness, which boosts brand image (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014; Keller 2001). Another explanation of brand reputation is given by Van Vught (2008), who talks about it as a cumulative outcome of several activities in order to generate an external image. Reputation is discussed by Bosch et al. (2006) as a variable that creates a brand identity, where the positive impact of reputation on brand identity is empirically tested and confirmed. Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) stress the importance of brand meaning in a decision-making process where customers develop the symbolic meaning of brand through its reputation. Escalas and Bettman (2005) also suggest that the reputation of a certain brand among the reference group plays a significant role in its selection, where the authors regard reference groups as a source of brand meaning. Furthermore, the study by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Table 3, p. 35) revealed that reputation was negatively related to attachment strength, and therefore this relationship was not supported. Additionally, the study by Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) found that reputation to the brand image, the brand meaning, and brand identity were positive and significant. Therefore, the following hypotheses are posited: H1a: A. Le Coq beer’s brand reputation is significantly and positively related to the brand image of A. Le Coq beer. Brand Equity of A. Le Coq beer Commitment Trust Satisfaction Attachment strength Brand Image Brand Meaning Brand Identity Reputation H1a H1c H1b H2b H2a H2c H4b H4c H3c H3a H4a H3b Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model of brand equity of A. Le Coq beer—adapted from the study by Dennis et al. (2016, p. 3051). 2.4.1. The Impact of Reputation on Brand Characteristics Reputation can be defined as a favourable view that customers hold, where they differentiate a certain brand from another by evaluating its overall value and utility (Bhattacharya and Elsbach 2002;Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014). Roper and Fill (2012) explain reputation as a summary that combines various views and perceptions shared by different people. In other words, brand reputation can be seen as an important indicator that displays how well the brand performs in the market in comparison with its competitors (Dennis et al. 2016). Dennis et al. (2016) found positive effects of reputation to brand image, brand meaning, and brand identity. It is worth mentioning that Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) found that reputation had a strong positive effect on brand meaning. Chaudhuri (2002) emphasises the importance of brand reputation and refers to it as an important tool, since it plays an immense role in making strategic managerial decisions. It is mentioned that cultivating a positive reputation is vital in order to become successful and profitable in the market (Herbig and Milewicz 1993) whilst requiring proper branding and overall marketing activities. Reputation has an impact on the development of brand image by creating brand awareness, which boosts brand image (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014;Keller 2001). Another explanation of brand reputation is given by Van Van Vught (2008), who talks about it as a cumulative outcome of several activities in order to generate an external Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 17 of 40 image. Reputation is discussed by Bosch et al. (2006) as a variable that creates a brand identity, where the positive impact of reputation on brand identity is empirically tested and confirmed. Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) stress the importance of brand meaning in a decision-making process where customers develop the symbolic meaning of brand through its reputation. Escalas and Bettman (2005) also suggest that the reputation of a certain brand among the reference group plays a significant role in its selection, where the authors regard reference groups as a source of brand meaning. Furthermore, the study by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Table 3, p. 35) revealed that reputation was negatively related to attachment strength, and therefore this relationship was not supported. Additionally, the study by Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) found that reputation to the brand image, the brand meaning, and brand identity were positive and significant. Therefore, the following hypotheses are posited: H1a: A. Le Coq beer’s brand reputation is significantly and positively related to the brand image of A. Le Coq beer. H1b: A. Le Coq beer’s brand reputation is significantly and positively related to the brand meaning of A. Le Coq beer. H1c: A. Le Coq beer’s brand reputation is significantly and positively related to the brand identity of A. Le Coq beer. 2.4.2. Brand Characteristics and Their Impact on Attachment Strength As is already clear, brand characteristics have the ability to affect and change customer behaviour significantly, and this influence can start before the actual purchasing process and last afterwards. It has been observed that customers make their purchasing decisions not only based on rational arguments, such as the product’s functionality and utility, but also their subjective understanding of what a brand means to them (Levy 1959). In their empirical research, Escalas and Bettman (2005) discuss the importance of brand meaning on an individual’s selfperception and how he/she expresses him/herself in the surroundings by using brands as an instrument. The authors also draw attention to the fact that customers develop their self-identities based on their brand selection and build up strong brand–customer relationships (Escalas and Bettman 2005). The next brand characteristic, which is also part of the conceptual model, is brand identity, which is defined as a set of distinctive brand associations that marketing managers endeavour to develop in order to differentiate their product from others in the market (Aaker 1996;Kapferer 2008). The main purpose behind identity-building activities is to secure a competitive advantage and to survive in the marketplace by showing what the brand is capable of offering to customers (Da Silveira et al. 2013). The development of a strong and clear brand identity can enable deep brand–customer attachment and accelerate the overall brand equity (Ghodeswar 2008). Brand image is a concept which has been well researched by scholars over time, and it is described as a customer’s perception of a brand that is strongly affected by brand associations that have emerged and developed in their mind over time (Keller 2003). These brand associations include all kinds of beliefs, ideas, visuals, and thoughts (Kotler and Fox 1995) which are held in the customers’ memory and have a notable impact on customer behaviour (Kuhn et al. 2008). Companies prioritise their brand image activities in order to develop a strong relationship with the customers in the market, thus increasing brand loyalty and maximising profit. After defining and explaining the brand characteristics in brief, the significant effect of them on brand–self connection can be understood, and therefore on attachment strength. Park et al. (2010) suggest that customers develop an attachment to the brand, whereby they are connected emotionally and cognitively to the brand, eventually considering it Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 18 of 40 as part of themselves. It can be argued that accurate and complete branding activities strengthen the attachment between the brand and the self. The study by Dennis et al. (2016) showed that the relationship between brand meaning and attachment strength was important, positive, and significant. However, the relationships between brand identity and attachment strength and brand image and attachment strength were positive, but not significant. These considerations are captured in the following hypotheses: H2a: A. Le Coq’s brand meaning is significantly and positively related to a customer’s attachment strength to the brand of A. Le Coq beer. H2b: A. Le Coq’s brand identity is significantly and positively related to a customer’s attachment strength to the brand of A. Le Coq beer. H2c: A. Le Coq’s brand image is significantly and positively related to a customer’s attachment strength to the brand of A. Le Coq beer. 2.4.3. The Impact of Attachment Strength on Relationship Factors The notion of attachment strength plays a significant role in order to unveil the quality of the relationship between a customer and brand (Thomson 2006). Feelings that emerge alongside attachment are essential for the brand–customer relationship (Fournier et al. 1998), and the more this attachment intensifies, the more enduring the relationship becomes cultivated. In the study by Park et al. (2010), the authors mention the importance of attachment strength that can lead to positive emotions, such as commitment, satisfaction, etc. In the study by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Table 3, p. 35), it was found that attachment strength was positively related to satisfaction, commitment, and trust. However, attachment strength was significantly related to only satisfaction and commitment, but not to trust. Additionally, the study found that attachment strength had a strong positive effect on commitment. It can be stated that attachment to the brand is vital for developing a brand– customer relationship which is trustful, committed, and satisfied. The study by Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) showed that both relationships between attachment strength and commitment and attachment strength and trust were positive and significant. However, for the same study, the relationship between attachment strength and satisfaction was negative and non-significant. In addition, both studies by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Table 3, p. 35) and Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) revealed that the relationship between attachment and brand equity was positive and significant. Therefore: H3a: The customer’s attachment strength to A. Le Coq beer is significantly and positively related to his/her commitment to the brand of A. Le Coq beer. H3b: The customer’s attachment strength to A. Le Coq beer is significantly and positively related to his/her trust in the brand of A. Le Coq beer. H3c: The customer’s attachment strength to A. Le Coq beer is significantly and positively related to his/her satisfaction in the brand of A. Le Coq beer. 2.4.4. Relationship Factors and Their Role in the Formation of the Brand Equity of A. Le Coq Beer After reviewing the literature, we define trust as the willingness of one party to enter the situation of being open to the actions of another party, whether or not his/her actions can be inspected (Mayer et al. 1995). Confidence plays an important role in the process of developing trust, and Morgan and Hunt (1994) describe trust as having confidence in another party’s credibility and fairness. Furthermore, it can be said that trust emerges in the circumstance where the trusting person expects positive outcomes from the counterpart’s actions (Anderson and Narus 1990) and holds a belief that he or she will not be taken Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 19 of 40 advantage of. In conclusion, the value of trust in the brand–customer relationship should be emphasised, since credibility and trustworthiness accelerate brand loyalty and brand advocacy, which are indicators of strong and desired brand equity (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014;Keller 2001). Commitment can be conceptualised as a process of preserving an existing relationship which is valuable and worth sustaining. One of the most well-known definitions of commitment is introduced by Morgan and Hunt (1994), where they describe it as one party’s utmost efforts and desire to protect an ongoing relationship with an exchange partner. Moreover, attention can be drawn to the fact that strong commitment can lead to brand loyalty (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002), whereby customers tend to perform repeated purchasing. Since it is known that brand loyalty is one of the essential blocks of the CBBE model in order to develop strong brand equity (Keller 2001), the following statement can make sense: the more strongly commitment is developed between customer and brand, the greater is the growth of brand equity. Sense of satisfaction refers to the customer’s perception of the difference in expected and experienced performance resulting from the utilisation of certain products or services (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002;Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014). The satisfaction level of a customer is related to how well his or her needs are fulfilled. Satisfied customers tend to be more engaged in the relationship with the brand, and they are also keen to share their positive experience with others through word-of-mouth (File et al. 1994;Yi 1990). There are several instances of research stating that the notion of satisfaction plays an important role in the emergence of brand loyalty and in developing an emotional bond with the brand (Anderson et al. 1994;Rust and Zahorik 1993). Thus, the conclusion can be made that satisfied customers are likely to exhibit stronger levels of brand equity. Keller (1993) stresses the necessity of customers having positive, strong, and distinctive brand associations in order to maintain favourable customer-based brand equity. Desirable brand associations are developed when customers genuinely believe that the brand is capable of meeting their expectations and fulfilling their needs (Keller 1993). Therefore, if customers are satisfied with the brand, show a strong commitment to the brand, and believe that the brand can be trusted, it will lead to strong and desired brand equity. The study by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Table 3, p. 35) found that the relationships between trust and brand equity, commitment and brand equity, and satisfaction and brand equity were positive and significant. Similarly, the study by Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054) found that the same three relationships were positive and significant. Since these aforementioned relationship factors have a significant effect on the occurrence of brand equity, we present the following hypotheses: H4a: The customer’s trust in A. Le Coq beer is significantly and positively related to the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. H4b: The customer’s commitment to A. Le Coq beer is significantly and positively related to the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. H4c: The customer’s satisfaction with A. Le Coq beer is significantly and positively related to the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. 3. Methodology 3.1. Scale Development We assessed 9 constructs with the help of 7-point multi-item Likert-type scales to examine the presented hypotheses and conceptual model. These multi-item scales were adopted from various sources and tailored to this research. Even though the study uses established scales taken from research in a higher education context by Dennis et al. (2016), they fit appropriately into this research, since they were not developed specifically for Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 20 of 40 certain industry contexts, except for the scales for brand identity by Goi et al. (2014), which also show compatibility. Appendix A(Table A1) shows the operationalisation of the study, for example, the measurement scales and their sources as well as the constructs and items utilised for the evaluation of the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. For the sake of clarity, the 9 multi-item scales that are mentioned in the conceptual model will now be focused on and a brief explanation of each of them is given in the same Appendix A(Table A1). 3.2. Exploration for Biases The study checks for different biases, such as the non-response bias, the common method bias, and the endogeneity bias. First, the non-response bias is the method followed by Armstrong and Overton (1977). According to them, late responses are expected to be similar to non-respondents. When performing a t-test under the assumption of equal and unequal group variances for three groups (early and late participants), the study found no significant differences between the means of any of the variables associated with early and late responses. Based on the findings of the t-test, there were no significant differences between the early cases (the first 60 cases) and late participants (the final 60 cases). Within the total sample of 120 participants and the two groups (early and late participants), there were no significant differences between the means of the items in the t-test analysis. Therefore, the non-response bias was not an issue. Second, the study explored the common method of variance. A CFA was performed, in which all indicators included in the structural model were restricted to load on a single factor (Podsakoff and Organ 1986;Podsakoff et al. 2003;Podsakoff et al. 2012). The test of the fit of the model showed a poor model fit, which implies that the common method of variance was not a problem in this study. Third, based on the two-stage least-squares method, the study checked for the endogeneity bias. The instrumental variables, i.e., reputation, brand image, brand meaning, brand identity, attachment strength, commitment, trust, and satisfaction, were correlated with their respective endogenous explanatory variables, but not with brand equity. F-tests (Stock and Watson 2011) revealed the strength of instrumental variables, and we computed another model. The findings of the test of Durbin–Wu–Hausman indicated that reputation, brand image, brand meaning, brand identity, attachment strength, commitment, trust, and satisfaction were exogenous to brand equity, with all variables having F statistics greater than 10 (Stock and Watson 2011). Therefore, it was evident that there was no endogeneity bias. 3.3. Sample Selection and Fieldwork In order to collect the empirical data for this research, the authors conducted selfadministered structured online and offline surveys among consumers of A. Le Coq beer in Estonia. The study used a sample of convenience from bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. students, as well as graduates from the University of Tartu, who are consumers of A. Le Coq beer. Google’s online survey administration service—Google forms—was used for the online response gathering process, since it has several of the following benefits: the responses can be exported to Google sheets, which can be downloaded as .xlsx files for future usage, the survey can be accessed and modified easily in case of need, there is a self-made summary mode for better view, and so on. Initially, we performed a pilot study with 10 questionnaires among students at the University of Tartu to ensure the reliability and validity of the scales. These questionnaires were used in the analysis. The online survey was sent out to both students and graduates living in Estonia and received 100 valid responses. An offline survey was also conducted among students at that time in Tartu, and 20 valid answers were obtained. For both of these surveys, live assistance was provided to the participants, if needed, in order to make sure that every question was well understood. The gender breakdown of the respondents was Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 21 of 40 almost equal, representing the general population very well. Even though it is believed that student samples cannot represent the general population and there is a question mark over the validity of these samples, nevertheless, student samples can be used for some situations where they actually are recognised as major consumers of the chosen product (Atilgan et al. 2005;Yoo et al. 2000). Several studies (Karam et al. 2007;Stock et al. 2009) have discussed the alcohol consumption habits of students, and a high level of alcohol consumption was observed. A survey of university students in the USA about their alcohol consumption concluded that 70% of the respondents had consumed alcohol during the last 30 days (O’Malley and Johnston 2002), and Kidorf et al. (1995) observed that this consumption mostly took the form of drinking beer (as cited in Barth 2013). Additionally, empirical studies on the demographics of beer consumption show that younger people between the ages of 19 and 34 drink more beer per month than older people (Kerr et al. 2004). Considering the fact that all of the respondents—both Estonians and foreigners—are consumers of A. Le Coq beer and have lived or are living in Tartu, where A. Le Coq has significant popularity, this sample group can be regarded as appropriate. The survey instrument consisted of two parts: the respondents answered questions about their socio-demographic and economic status in the first part, and the second part consisted of 9 constructs with 33 variables/items/statements related to various aspects and consequences of the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. In the second part, the respondents were asked to state their agreement or disagreement with questions based on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 meaning strongly disagree and 7 meaning strongly agree. Instead of a simple yes/no-type of assessment, we chose a Likert-type scale in order to obtain more sophisticated and specific data, since this type of scale helps to measure feelings more precisely. In the end, we managed to obtain 120 valid responses in total. The investigation of this study, and, in particular, the collection of data through a survey instrument, took place during the first six months of 2021. Table 2indicates the frequencies and the percentages related to gender, age, location, education level, occupation, and nationality. Table 2. Profile of the participants. Variables Frequency Percentage Gender Male 62 51.7 Female 58 48.3 Total 120 100.0 Age From 18 to 24 90 75 25–34 30 25 Total 120 100.0 Location Tartu 84 70 Tallinn 22 18.3 Other 14 11.7 Total 120 100.0 Education (Highest level completed) Ph.D. 1 0.83 Master’s 60 50 Bachelor’s 53 44.1 Secondary 5 4.24 Other 1 0.83 Total 120 100.0 Occupation Employed 26 21.7 Non-employed 94 78.3 Total 120 100.0 Nationality Estonian 26 21.7 Foreigners 94 78.3 Total 120 100.0 Note: Compiled by the authors. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 22 of 40 4. Findings 4.1. Profile of the Participants1 Analysis of the participants in the survey showed that the majority were male (62) compared to female (58). The participants were young, all between 18 and 34 years old. The majority were in the age group 18–24 (90) as compared to 25–34 (30). In addition, most of the participants were from Tartu (84) as compared to Tallinn (22) and other places (14). The majority of the participants had a master’s degree (60) compared to a bachelor’s degree (53), secondary certificate (5), Ph.D. (1), and other education (1). The majority of the participants were university students (94) compared to employees (26). Finally, there were 26 Estonians and 94 participants from other countries. 4.2. Differences between Gender Groups, Age Groups, Location, Education Level, Employment/Non-Employment, and Nationality An independent samples t-test was performed to reveal whether there were statistically significant differences between different populations based on the tested variables. The t-test analysis was performed on six different population characteristics, which are shown in Table 3, among 9 constructs including 33 items that belong to the conceptual model. Table 4shows which items/variables are statistically significantly different between each of the six different population characteristics, i.e., males vs. females, 18–24 vs. 25–34 age groups, Tartu vs. Tallinn, Ph.D. vs. master’s vs. bachelor’s vs. secondary education, employed vs. non-employed, and Estonians vs. foreigners. Table 3. T-test analysis of differences between different population segments. Variables Item p-Value * Significant Differences between Different Segments X1, Gender X15 0.015 Where 1: male, 2: female X37 0.037 X2, Age - no statistically significant differences Where 1: 18–24, 2: 35–34 X3, Location X7 0.072 Where 1: Tartu, 2: Tallinn X8 0.003 X10 0.077 X12 0.082 X33 0.048 X4, Education X23 0.087 Where 1: bachelor’s, 2: master’s X5, Occupation X20 0.084 Where 1: student, 2: employed X33 0.035 X35 0.038 X6, Nationality X16 0.027 Where 1: Estonian, 2: other X19 0.016 X28 0.055 X37 0.084 X38 0.080 Note *: Significant at p< 0.10. The independent samples test was performed with the use of SPSS 29, and the study revealed the following significant differences, as follows. Regarding gender groups, there was a significant difference between males and females regarding the following two statements: I consume A. Le Coq beer to communicate who I am to other people (X15), and even if another beer had the same features as this one, I would prefer to purchase A. Le Coq beer (X37). Females agreed with both statements as compared to males, who disagreed with both statements. Regarding age groups, there were no significant differences among the statements of the model between the two age groups, 18–24 and 25–34 years old. Therefore, all age groups behaved in the same way. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 23 of 40 Regarding location, there were some significant differences in relation to statements X7, X8, X10, X12, and X33 between participants from Tartu vs. Tallinn. Persons from Tartu agreed with the following statements: A. Le Coq beer has a good status (X7), A. Le Coq beer has a good reputation (X8), the brand image of A. Le Coq beer is supportive (X12), and A. Le Coq beer keeps its promises (X33), as compared to persons from Tallinn, who disagreed with them. Persons from Tartu disagreed with the statement that the brand image of A. Le Coq beer is straightforward (X10), as compared to persons from Tallinn, who agreed with this statement. Regarding the education level, persons with a master’s degree agreed with the statement to what extent do you feel emotionally bonded to A. Le Coq beer (X23), as compared to persons with a bachelor’s degree, who disagreed with the statement. Regarding occupation engagement, students (non-employees) agreed with the statement that the members of the staff are well trained in their roles (X20), as compared to employees, who disagreed with this. Additionally, students disagreed with the statement that A. Le Coq beer keeps its promises (X33), and with the statement that, overall, I am satisfied with consuming A. Le Coq beer (X35), as compared to employees, who agreed with both statements. Finally, regarding nationality, Estonians agreed with the following three statements, namely, this is a visible brand name with personality (X19), even if another beer had the same features as this one, I would prefer to purchase A. Le Coq beer (X37), and if there was another beer as good as this one, I would still prefer to purchase A. Le Coq beer (X38), as compared to other nationalities, who disagreed with these statements. In addition, Estonians disagreed with the statement, I think A. Le Coq beer helps me become the type of person I want to be (X16), and the statement, I really care about A. Le Coq beer, as compared to other nationalities, who agreed with both statements (X28). Table 4. Mean values of variables revealed from t-test for different pairs of groups *. Population Characteristics Items Revealed from the t-Test Male vs. Female Tartu vs. Tallinn Bachelor’s vs. Master’s Unemployed vs. Employed Estonians vs. Other X1, Gender X15 2.98 MD/2.22 D X37 3.44 MD/4.09 N X2, Age None X3, Location X7 5.19 MA/ 4.41 N X8 5.44 MA/ 4.46 N X10 5.08 MA/ 4.5 N X12 4.69 MA/ 4.09 N X33 4.46 N/ 3.68 N X4, Education X23 . 3.32 MD/2.73 MD X5, Occupation X20 4.35 N/3.92 N X33 4.52 MA/3.73 N X35 4.70 MA/3.89 N X6, Nationality X16 3.23 MD/2.23 D X19 5.0 MA/4.12 N X28 3.35 MD/2.58 MD X37 4.31 N/3.60 N X38 4.27 N/3.61 N Note *: Based on a scale of the range strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) where D = disagree = 2; MD = mildly disagree = 3; N = neutral = 4; MA = mildly agree = 5. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 24 of 40 Initially, the study split the data files into different data files, i.e., male and female, 18–24 years and 25–34 years, Tartu and Tallinn, bachelor’s and master’s students, unemployed and employed, and Estonians and others. In addition, the study calculated the means of the variables found in the t-test based on descriptive statistics, and the results are compared between the dual groups in Table 4. Table 4shows that, for females, the mean value of X15 was lower compared to males, and the mean value of X37 was higher compared to males. Additionally, it shows that there is no statistically significant difference regarding age groups of 18–24 years old and 25–34 years old. Regarding the location, the mean values of X7, X8, X10, X12, and X33 were lower for participants coming from Tallinn compared to those from Tartu. Additionally, in terms of education, the mean value of X23 was lower for participants having a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a master’s degree. Furthermore, regarding the occupation of the participants, the mean values of X20, X33, and X35 were lower for employed persons compared to unemployed ones. Finally, in terms of nationality, the mean values of X16, X19, X28, X37, and X38 were lower for other nationalities compared to Estonians. 4.3. Variance Inflation Factor and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using AMOS 29 4.3.1. Variance Inflation Factor In the following paragraphs, the study uses confirmatory factor analysis through AMOS 29 in order to (a) examine the collinearity statistics, (b) test the model fit, (c) illustrate the path coefficients, total effects, and outer weights, and (d) evaluate the construct reliability and validity, as well as the discriminant validity. Initially, the study runs the collinearity statistics—the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Hair et al. 2014, pp. 157, 200)—to assess the collinearity issues of the model. Performing collinearity statistics is crucial, since it tells us whether any variables should be extracted or combined together in order to avoid multicollinearity problems (Wong 2013). The value of the VIF needs to be less than five for each variable in the model to prevent multicollinearity (Hair et al. 2011). Based on the values of the VIF (see Table 5), the study reveals that two variables, X22 and X23, face the problem of multicollinearity. However, the study has not extracted these two variables from the model due to the high standardised regression weights of all items of the model, which were all above the critical value of 0.500 (see Table 6). It is worth mentioning that we have calculated the VIF statistic for all items, revealing that items X22 and X23 had values of 5.376 and 5.398, respectively. The remaining items had VIF values of between 1.483 and 4.431. Table 5. Collinearity statistics (VIF). Variables VIF Variables VIF Variables VIF Variables VIF X7 2.586 X16 3.057 X25 3.218 X34 2.578 X8 2.586 X17 1.525 X26 2.454 X35 3.980 X9 1.486 X18 2.004 X27 3.834 X36 3.071 X10 1.761 X19 1.483 X28 3.721 X37 3.429 X11 1.605 X20 1.799 X29 2.613 X38 4.431 X12 1.898 X21 3.693 X30 2.295 X39 3.333 X13 2.781 X22 5.376 X31 2.471 X14 2.446 X23 5.398 X32 2.405 X15 2.788 X24 4.341 X33 2.136 Note: Compiled by the authors. 4.3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using AMOS 29 A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 29 was performed to test the model fit of the model. A CFA has about the same findings as the partial least squares–structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) SmartPLS3, the findings of which are not included, as this method does not calculate the covariances for testing the hypotheses. Furthermore, the CFA statistics are satisfactory for the model fit to the data. The final improved version of Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 31 of 40 agreed that A. Le Coq beer is a visible brand name with personality, and they would purchase A. Le Coq beer even if other beers have the same characteristics or are as good as this brand. Furthermore, the Estonians disagreed with other nationalities that A. Le Coq beer helps them become the type of persons they want to be, and they disagreed that they really care about A. Le Coq beer. The above findings on the five categories of demographic differences could assist the CEOs of A. Le Coq beer and of other brands to set up appropriate strategies to attract different groups of consumers to purchase their brands of beer. 6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research 6.1. Conclusions The notion of brand equity has received significant attention from scholars in the past two decades and many concepts and models concerning brand equity have been proposed. However, there are few studies that analyse the impact of brand equity components on overall brand equity based on empirical data. This paper has empirically examined the brand equity components of A. Le Coq beer in order to contribute to this sparsely examined area. Referring to the theoretical underpinnings of the study, we adopted Jillapalli and Jillapalli’s (2014) customer-based brand equity model, which is, in turn, based on Keller’s (1993;2001) brand resonance model, and also employed Dennis et al.’s (2016) empirical research. The focus of this study was in unveiling an understanding of A. Le Coq beer in the minds of customers. In this section, we provide a summary of the results obtained from the multiple analyses and comment on the hypothesised relationships of the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. The present research contributes to the existing literature on beer brand equity, and specifically internal brand equity. We did not follow Aaker’s construct structure in the model, but used, for the first time, a product such as the alcoholic beverage of A. Le Coq beer, part of the structure of the constructs followed by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014), and the whole structure of constructs used by the study of Dennis et al. (2016). Both models have engaged the important four constructs of attachment strength, commitment, trust, and satisfaction. It is worth mentioning that the model of Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Figure 2, p. 34) includes the construct of competence as one of the three dimensions of brand characteristics (perceived quality, competence, and reputation). In comparison to this study, the investigation by Dennis et al. (2016, Figure 1, p. 3051) included perceived quality, reputation, brand image, brand meaning, and brand identity, with the last three being new, as well as competence, which was not included. Both studies by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) and Dennis et al. (2016) used three of the constructs utilised by Aaker (1991), namely, perceived quality, reputation, and brand equity, as the dependent variable. Additionally, the present study finds that all the examined relationships are positive and significant. Compared to both studies by Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014, Table 3, p. 35) and Dennis et al. (2016, Table 4, p. 3054), which found some relationships that were negative and non-significant or positive and non-significant, the current study found only positive and significant relationships. Therefore, the application of the model by Dennis et al. (2016, Figure 1, p. 3051) on the current set of data in relation to the beer brand equity of A. Le Coq beer is very successful, as all hypotheses are supported. All the hypotheses are found to be positive and significant. The study revealed that some relationships are strong and positive, and identified the strong brand equity drivers of beer in Estonia. These strong and positive relationships are between brand meaning and attachment strength, attachment strength and trust, attachment strength and commitment, and attachment strength and satisfaction. In addition, the study revealed some significant differences between gender, i.e., male vs. female, adequate convergence or location, i.e., Tartu vs. Tallinn, education, i.e., participants with a bachelor’s degree vs. a master’s degree, occupation, i.e., university students vs. employees, and nationality, i.e., Estonians vs. others. There was no significant difference between the participants of the different age groups, i.e., 18–24and 25–34-year-olds. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 32 of 40 In the conceptual model, there is the suggestion that A. Le Coq’s reputation has a significant and positive impact on the brand characteristics (brand image, brand meaning and brand identity) of A. Le Coq beer, which is validated by the findings. Furthermore, the results of the study reveal that brand meaning as one of the brand characteristics causes a sense of attachment, whereas the other two brand characteristics—brand image and brand identity—do not have an impact on attachment strength. As anticipated, the attachment strength has an impact on customers in developing committed, trustful, and satisfying relationships with A. Le Coq beer. One of the major findings is that the relationship factors— commitment, trust, and satisfaction—play a significant role in the development of the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer. Committed, trusting, and satisfying relationships shape the customer’s perception of the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer and strengthen the overall brand equity. The goodness of fit of the CFA model reveals that, generally, the model fits very well with the data, and, based on the calculations, the model has very good reliability and validity. In addition, the important relationships of the model that the CEOs of brands should pay attention to are specifically six relationships in terms of importance based on their path coefficients, including attachment strength to commitment, brand meaning to attachment strength, reputation to brand image, attachment strength to satisfaction, reputation to brand identity, and attachment strength to trust. The results indicate that the conceptual model of brand equity of A. Le Coq beer is valid and mostly in line with the findings of Dennis et al. (2016) and parallel to the customer-based brand equity model of Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014). The results are congruent with those of Dennis et al. (2016), who concluded that reputation has a positive and significant impact on brand characteristics but a non-significant impact on attachment strength. Additionally, the relationship between brand characteristics and attachment strength in this study shows consistency with Dennis et al.’s (2016) findings. On the other hand, Dennis et al. (2016) discovered a negative relationship between attachment strength and satisfaction; however, this study shows the relationship between them to be positive and statistically significant. Meanwhile, Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) indicated that the impact of attachment strength on trust is non-significant, which is contrary to the findings of both Dennis et al. (2016) and this study. Finally, Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) found relationship factors to have a positive and significant impact on brand equity, whereas this study indicates that commitment has a non-significant impact on brand equity, which parallels the findings of Dennis et al. (2016). Aaker (2009) emphasises the role of cultivating brand equity in developing a strong brand in order to differentiate a product from its competitors and gain competitive advantage in the marketplace. Strong brand equity can be achieved in the long term through rigorous marketing efforts, and thus leads to competitive barriers against competitors (Yoo et al. 2000). Breweries in Estonia, therefore, should put more emphasis on cultivating and managing brand equity, since it plays a significant role in the emergence of strong brands. 6.2. Theoretical and Managerial Implications Regarding the theoretical implications, one could say that the fit of the model is very good, showing the model to be quite satisfactory, with all relationships being significant and positive. On the other hand, regarding managerial implications, this study provides important insights to the management teams of competitive brands of beer, which should focus on the important relationships, namely, attachment strength and commitment, brand meaning and attachment strength, satisfaction to brand equity, commitment to brand equity, attachment strength to satisfaction, trust to brand equity, attachment strength to trust in the brand, and brand reputation to brand image. It is worth mentioning that both trust/commitment theory and CBBE theory are supported by the findings; for example, there are strong positive relationships within the tested model between trust, commitment, and satisfaction to brand equity and the determinants of CBBE are associated with strong positive relationships. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 33 of 40 Additionally, regarding the managerial implications of this study, the management team of A. Le Coq beer brand should think about how to boost the quadratic relationship of attachment strength–commitment–trust–satisfaction, which in turn positively influences the beer brand equity. This can be achieved to a high degree by advertising the strategic characteristics of the beer brand and the positive reactions of consumers to the beer brand, being a leader in the Estonian market and Baltic countries’ markets. What is new to the literature is that the quadratic relationship of attachment strength–commitment–trust– satisfaction positively influences the beer brand equity, and what managers can learn from these finding is that the management team should apply different methods/proposals to boost these relationships. Such methods could include the application of a package of advertising techniques to achieve this objective. 6.3. Limitations and Future Research This research contributes to the sparsely examined area of brand equity and is useful for understanding the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer, even though there are several limitations regarding the research. The sample size could be considered one of the limitations, since the conceptual model was tested with a sample size of 120 people. Additionally, the brand equity of A. Le Coq beer was studied with reference only to home country customers and not export markets. Based on the characteristics of the profile of the participants discussed earlier, the sample was based on young consumers aged 18 to 34 years, located in Tartu and Tallinn, with the majority of participants being from foreign countries (94) as compared to Estonians (24), and most of the participants being university students (94) as compared to employees (26). All these characteristics limit the generalisability of the study. A similar limitation was found in another study focused on another context, namely, that of Katsikari et al. (2020). Therefore, a future survey should be based on a stratified sample to include older participants aged 35 to 65 years, a higher percentage of employees, a more representative sample of Estonians vs. foreigners, and a more geographically representative sample based on the population of the counties of Estonia. The size of the sample (120 surveys) constitutes another limitation of the study. More reliable and comprehensive results can be achieved by simply employing a bigger and more diverse sample size. The issue of a small target population (based on a sample of students from the University of Tartu) is another limitation of this study. Furthermore, the convenience sampling used in the study can lead to the lack of generalizability of the data and the results. Moreover, we have used the scale developed for HEI rather than others tested in products, as we could not use many of other approaches in same investigation due to a time limitation. Another possible limitation of this study was the fact that we have performed gender group and age group differences with the use of a t-test analysis instead of using ANOVA, which is a multigroup analysis. Therefore, there was no need to run ANOVA using SPSS29. Furthermore, since we have obtained a good result for the EFA and CFA by using SPSS29 and AMOS29, respectively, and we were familiar with them, there was no need to invent and learn to use new software, for example, using Marzi et al.’s (2023) software. According to McNeish and Gordon (2020), the issue of a misalignment in the representativity of the constructs can be effectively assessed by using Marzi et al.’s (2023) validity measure of latent variables by utilising the CLC estimator. Another limitation is related to the cross-sectional nature of this research, where causal relationships can be derived. This limitation can provide an opportunity for future research, where a longitudinal study would benefit the in-depth understanding of the dynamic nature of brand-building activities. And, lastly, a comparative study involving another major beer brand in Estonia may reveal different aspects of brand equity formation in the brewery market. Finally, one of the limitations of this study is that the results of the research are useful only to the management of A. Le Coq and to the CEOs of the competing brands. Moreover, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 34 of 40 local competing brands could possibly find the results of this study very interesting in terms of the decision-making of their own management. Future research should focus on the findings of the EFA, in which both the constructs of satisfaction and brand equity were not identified. Research should be carried out in other countries to find out whether different cultures can influence the structure of the suggested model. Furthermore, researchers should assess models which have been tested on products. It is worth mentioning that future studies should focus on a systematic literature review (see Coudounaris and Arvidsson 2019,2022), on content analysis to find the potential themes (see Coudounaris et al. 2009;Leonidou et al. 2010), on a meta-analysis to find the meta-analytic correlations (see Coudounaris 2017,2018;Coudounaris et al. 2020), or on a bibliometric analysis of the dimensions of CBBE, which are missing from the existing literature. As the history of A. Le Coq in Estonia is intriguing and potentially specific, future researchers should consider the heritage of the brand (Hudson 2011;Rose et al. 2016; Pecot et al. 2018) in the context of the profound change in the Estonian market since 1912, involving World War I, the first independence, World War II, Soviet rule, and the new independence. This company is one of the few which have managed to survive. In this context, there are interesting paths to be tested, e.g., brand heritage, brand personality, brand nostalgia, brand quality, brand leadership, and brand competitive advantage (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016, Figure 1, Brand Building Block, p. 5481). Finally, brand authenticity (Prayag and Del Chiappa 2021) could be another antecedent factor of the brand building block. Finally, future researchers should think to engage, in their future models, with the brand building block, brand understanding block, and brand relationship block, as discussed by Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2016), Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2019), Veloutsou et al. (2020), and Veloutsou (2023). Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.N.C. and R.A.; methodology, D.N.C.; software, D.N.C.; validation, R.A.; formal analysis, D.N.C.; investigation, R.A.; resources, D.N.C., P.B., T.M. and R.A.; data curation, D.N.C.; writing—original draft preparation, D.N.C., T.M. and R.A.; writing— review and editing, D.N.C.; visualization, R.A.; supervision, D.N.C., P.B., T.M. and A.I.B.; project administration, D.N.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this manuscript. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from A. Le Coq brand of beer. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Constructs and their definitions. Constructs and Contributors Items in Each Construct * Definitions Reputation (Chaudhuri 2002) X7: A. Le Coq beer has a good status X8: A. Le Coq beer has a good reputation In order to assess A. Le Coq beer’s reputation, a two-item scale (Chaudhuri 2002) is utilised which reveals the customer’s attitude towards the brand. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 35 of 40 Table A1. Cont. Constructs and Contributors Items in Each Construct * Definitions Brand image (Syed Alwi and Da Silva 2007) X9: The brand image of A. Le Coq beer is reassuring X10: The brand image of A. Le Coq beer is straightforward X11: The brand image of A. Le Coq beer is open X12: The brand image of A. Le Coq beer is supportive The four-item scale (Syed Alwi and Da Silva 2007) captures the customer’s perception of the brand of A. Le Coq beer and measures the brand image. Brand meaning (Escalas and Bettman 2005) X13: A. Le Coq beer reflects who I am X14: I feel a personal connection to A. Le Coq beer X15: I consume A. Le Coq beer to communicate who I am to other people X16: I think A. Le Coq beer helps me become the type of person I want to be The four-item scale is sourced from Escalas and Bettman (2005) and measures the brand meaning by linking tangible and intangible brand associations. Brand identity (Goi et al. 2014) X17: A. Le Coq has a helpful website X18: A. Le Coq has an outstanding mission and vision X19: This is visible brand name with personality X20: The members of the staff are well trained in their roles The four-item brand identity scale (Goi et al. 2014) describes how well customers distinguish the brand of A. Le Coq beer from its competitors. Attachment strength (Park et al. 2010) X21: A. Le Coq beer is part of me and who I am X22: I feel personally connected to A. Le Coq beer X23: I feel emotionally bonded to A. Le Coq beer X24: A. Le Coq beer is part of me X25: A. Le Coq beer says something to other people about how I am The five-item scale (Park et al. 2010) measures how strongly customers are attached to A. Le Coq beer and gives insight into the intensity of the brand–customer relation. Commitment (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014) X26: I am very committed to A. Le Coq beer X27: A. Le Coq beer is very important to me X28: I really care about A. Le Coq beer X39: I believe that A. Le Coq beer deserves my effort in maintaining a relationship The four-item commitment scale (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014) determines the importance of the relationship to the customer of the brand of A. Le Coq beer and the dedication to preserve it. Trust (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014) X30: A. Le Coq beer can be trusted X31: A. Le Coq beer is expected to do what is right X32: A. Le Coq has high integrity X33: A. Le Coq beer keeps its promises The four-item scale (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014) shows how confident the customers are about their relationship with the brand of A. Le Coq beer and measures trust in the brand. Satisfaction (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014) X34: I am delighted with A. Le Coq beer, as it satisfies my thirst X35: Overall, I am satisfied with consuming A. Le Coq beer X36: I think I did the right thing when I decided to consume A. Le Coq beer The three-item satisfaction scale (Jillapalli and Jillapalli 2014) measures the customers’ response to how well A. Le Coq beer does in meeting customer expectations. Brand equity (Yoo et al. 2000) X37: Even if another beer had the same features as this one, I would prefer to purchase A. Le Coq beer X38: If there was another beer as good as this one, I would still prefer to purchase A. Le Coq beer X39: If another beer was similar to A. Le Coq beer in any way, it would still seem smarter to purchase A. Le Coq beer The final three-item scale (Yoo et al. 2000) measures whether customers respond positively to the marketing activities of A. Le Coq beer and captures the brand associations of A. Le Coq beer that customers keep in their minds. Note *: Adapted from Dennis et al. (2016, p. 3053). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 36 of 40 Notes 1The figures in parentheses indicate the number of respondents. References A. Le Coq. 2021. Available online: https://www.alecoq.ee/en/ (accessed on 16 October 2021). Aaker, David A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, David A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 38: 102–20. [CrossRef] Aaker, David A. 2009. Managing Brand Equity. New York: Simon and Schuster. Agaba, Moses K., and Kalu O. Emenike. 2019. Brand equity and competitive advantage in alcoholic beverage products. International Journal of Management and Network Economics 4: 246–62. [CrossRef] Aimkij, Nisarat, and Bahaudin G. Mujtaba. 2010. Branding and brand equity measurement in the beer industry of Thailand. Chinese Business Review 9: 1–16. Allaway, Arthur W., Patricia Huddleston, Judith Whipple, and Alexander E. Ellinger. 2011. Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty in the supermarket industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20: 190–204. American Marketing Association. 2021. Available online: https://www.ama.org/topics/branding/ (accessed on 16 October 2021). Anderson, Eugene W., Claes Fornell, and Donald R. Lehmann. 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58: 53–66. [CrossRef] Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–23. [CrossRef] Anderson, James C., and James A. Narus. 1990. A Model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing 54: 42–58. [CrossRef] Armstrong, J. Scott, and Terry S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14: 396–402. [CrossRef] Atilgan, Eda, ¸Safak Aksoy, and Serkan Akinci. 2005. Determinants of the brand equity: A verification approach in the beverage industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 23: 237–48. [CrossRef] Augusto, Mario, and Pedro Torres. 2018. Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’ willingness to pay in the banking industry: Mediating role of consumer-brand identification and brand equity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 42: 1–10. [CrossRef] Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences 16: 74–94. [CrossRef] Balmer, John M. T. 1995. Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of General Management 21: 24–46. [CrossRef] Balmer, John M. T., and Edmund R. Gray. 2003. Corporate brands: What are they? What of them? European Journal of Marketing 37: 972–97. [CrossRef] Barth, Roger. 2013. The chemistry of beer. In Using Food to Stimulate Interest in the Chemistry Classroom. Edited by Keith Symcox. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, vol. 1130, pp. 37–47. [CrossRef] Baumgarth, Carsten, and Lars Binckebanck. 2011. Sales force impact on B-to-B brand equity: Conceptual framework and empirical test. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20: 487–98. Baumgarth, Carsten, and Marco Schmidt. 2010. How strong is the business-to-business brand in the workforce? An empirically-tested model of ‘internal brand equity’ in a business-to-business setting. Industrial Marketing Management 39: 1250–60. [CrossRef] Berry, Leonard L. 2000. Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 128–37. [CrossRef] Bhattacharya, Chitra Bhanu, and Kimberly D. Elsbach. 2002. Us versus Them: The roles of organizational identification and disidentification in social marketing initiatives. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 21: 26–36. [CrossRef] Bosch, Johan, Elmarie Venter, Ying Han, and Christo Boshoff. 2006. The impact of brand identity on the perceived brand image of a merged higher education institution: Part one. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists 15: 10–30. Brewers of Europe. 2020. The Brewers of Europe Media Centre—Publications—Beer Statistics—2019 and Previous Years. Available online: https://brewersofeurope.org/site/media-centre/index.php?doc_id=982andclass_id=31anddetail=true (accessed on 8 April 2020). Brown, James R., Jody L. Crosno, and Pui Ying Tong. 2019. Is the theory of trust and commitment in marketing relationships incomplete? Industrial Marketing Management 77: 155–69. [CrossRef] Burmann, Christoph, Sabrina Hegner, and Nicola Riley. 2009. Towards an identity-based branding. Marketing Theory 9: 113–18. [CrossRef] Chatzipanagiotou, Kalliopi, Cleopatra Veloutsou, and George Christodoulides. 2016. Decoding the complexity of consumer-based brand equity process. Journal of Business Research 69: 5479–86. [CrossRef] Chatzipanagiotou, Kalliopi, George Christodoulides, and Cleopatra Veloutsou. 2019. Managing the consumer-based brand equity process: A cross-cultural perspective. International Business Review 28: 328–43. [CrossRef] Chaudhuri, Arjun. 1995. Brand equity or double jeopardy? Journal of Product and Brand Management 4: 26–32. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 37 of 40 Chaudhuri, Arjun. 2002. How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link. Journal of Advertising Research 42: 33–43. [CrossRef] Christodoulides, George, and Leslie Chernatony. 2010. Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research 52: 43–66. [CrossRef] Christodoulides, George, Cadogan John W., and Cleopatra Veloutsou. 2015. Consumer-based brand equity measurement: Lessons learned from an international study. International Marketing Review 32: 307–28. [CrossRef] Cornell, Martyn. 2017. Albert Le Coq and the Russian imperial stout trade. Brewery History 172: 2–8. Coudounaris, Dafnis N. 2017. A meta-analysis on subsidiary exit. In Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing Trends. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Edited by Maximilian Stieler. Developments in Marketing Science. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 837–60. [CrossRef] Coudounaris, Dafnis N. 2018. Export promotion programmes for assisting SMEs. Review of International Business and Strategy 28: 77–110. [CrossRef] Coudounaris, Dafnis N., and Henrik G. S. Arvidsson. 2019. Recent literature review on effectuation. Paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Conference 2019, International Marketing Track, London, UK, July 2–4; pp. 1–18. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3776163 (accessed on 23 May 2023). Coudounaris, Dafnis N., and Henrik G. S. Arvidsson. 2022. How effectuation, causation and bricolage influence the international performance of firms via internationalisation strategy: A literature review. Review of International Business and Strategy 32: 149–203. [CrossRef] Coudounaris, Dafnis N., Maria Orero-Blat, and Maria Rodríguez-García. 2020. Three decades of subsidiary exits: Parent firm financial performance and moderators. Journal of Business Research 110: 408–22. [CrossRef] Coudounaris, Dafnis N., Olga Kvasova, Leonidas C. Leonidou, Leyland F. Pitt, and Dion Nel. 2009. Fifteen good years—An analysis of publications in Management International Review. Management International Review 49: 671–84. [CrossRef] Çifci, Sertaç, Yuksel Ekinci, Georgina Whyatt, Arnold Japutra, Sebastian Molinillo, and Haytham Siala. 2016. A cross validation of consumer-based brand equity models: Driving customer equity in retail brands. Journal of Business Research 69: 3740–47. [CrossRef] Da Silva, Rui Vinhas, and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2008. Online corporate brand image, satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Brand Management 16: 119–44. [CrossRef] Da Silveira, Catherine, Carmen Lages, and Cláudia Simões. 2013. Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic environment. Journal of Business Research 66: 28–36. [CrossRef] Dawes, John. 2008. Regularities in buyer behaviour and brand performance: The case of Australian beer. Journal of Brand Management 15: 198–208. [CrossRef] De Chernatony, Leslie, and George Christodoulides. 2004. Taking the brand promise online: Challenges and opportunities. Interactive Marketing 5: 238–51. [CrossRef] Dennis, Charles, Savvas Papagiannidis, Eleftherios Alamanos, and Michael Bourlakis. 2016. The role of brand attachment strength in higher education. Journal of Business Research 69: 3049–57. [CrossRef] Ehrenberg, Andrew S. C., Gerald J. Goodhardt, and T. Patrick Barwise. 1990. Double jeopardy revisited. Journal of Marketing 54: 82–91. [CrossRef] Erdem, Tülin, and Joffre Swait. 1998. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7: 131–57. [CrossRef] Erikson, Erik H. 1994. Identity and the Life Cycle, rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Escalas, Jennifer Edson, and James R. Bettman. 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research 32: 378–89. [CrossRef] Fader, Peter S., and David C. Schmittlein. 1993. Excess behavioral loyalty for high-share brands: Deviations from the dirichlet model for repeat purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research 30: 478–93. [CrossRef] File, Karen Maru, Dianne S. P. Cermak, and Russ Alan Prince. 1994. Word-of-mouth effects in professional service buyer behaviour. The Service Industries Journal 14: 301–14. [CrossRef] Fischer, Marc, Franziska Völckner, and Henrik Sattler. 2010. How important are brands? A cross-category, cross-country study. Journal of Marketing Research 47: 823–39. [CrossRef] Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. Fournier, Susan, Susan Dobscha, and David Glen Mick. 1998. Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review 76: 42–44. Available online: https://hbr.org/1998/01/preventing-the-premature-death-of-relationship-marketing (accessed on 23 May 2023). [PubMed] Francioni, Barbara, Curina Ilaria, Hegner Sabrina M., Cioppi Marco, and Tonino Pencarelli. 2022. Managing brand equity in the brewing sector. British Food Journal 124: 501–19. [CrossRef] Ghodeswar, Bhimrao M. 2008. Building brand identity in competitive markets: A conceptual model. Journal of Product and Brand Management 17: 4–12. [CrossRef] Goi, Mei The, Lee Chai Goi, and David Wong. 2014. Constructing a brand identity scale for higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24: 59–74. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 38 of 40 Grubb, Edward L., and Harrison L. Grathwohl. 1967. Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing 31: 22–27. [CrossRef] Hair, Joe F., Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19: 139–52. [CrossRef] Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Andover: Cengage Learning, EMEA, Cheriton House and North Way. Hakala, Ulla, Johan Svensson, and Zsuzsanna Vincze. 2012. Consumer-based brand equity and top-of-mind awareness: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management 21: 439–51. Hatch, Mary Jo, and Majken Schultz. 2001. Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review 79: 128–34. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne D. Gremler. 2002. Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research 4: 230–47. [CrossRef] Henseler, Jörg, Ringle Christian M., and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–35. [CrossRef] Herbig, Paul, and John Milewicz. 1993. The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success. Journal of Consumer Marketing 10: 18–24. [CrossRef] Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55. [CrossRef] Hudson, Bradford T. 2011. Brand heritage and the renaissance of Cunard. European Journal of Marketing 45: 1538–56. [CrossRef] Hwang, Peter. 2006. Asset specificity and the fear of exploitation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 60: 423–38. [CrossRef] Hwang, Peter, and Willem P. Burgers. 1997. Properties of trust: An analytical view. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69: 67–73. [CrossRef] Iglesias, Oriol, Markovic Stefan, and Josep Rialp. 2019. How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee empathy. Journal of Business Research 96: 343–54. [CrossRef] Ind, Nicholas, ed. 1997. The corporate brand. In The Corporate Brand. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–13. [CrossRef] Invest in Estonia. 2019. Tallinn among CNN’s Top 15 Cities for Craft Beer. Several Breweries Searching for Investment. Available online: https://investinestonia.com/tallinn-among-top-15-cities-for-craft-beer-several-breweries-searching-for-investment/ (accessed on 7 August 2019). Jillapalli, Ravi K., and Regina Jillapalli. 2014. Do professors have customer-based brand equity? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24: 22–40. [CrossRef] Kapferer, Jean-Noël. 2008. The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Karam, Elie, Kypros Kypri, and Mariana Salamoun. 2007. Alcohol use among college students: An international perspective. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 20: 213–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Katsikari, Christina, Leonidas Hatzithomas, Thomas Fotiadis, and Dimitrios Folinas. 2020. Push and pull travel motivation: Segmentation of the Greek market for social media marketing in tourism. Sustainability 12: 4770. [CrossRef] Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57: 1–22. [CrossRef] Keller, Kevin Lane. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands. Marketing Management 10: 15–19. Keller, Kevin Lane. 2003. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 29: 595–600. [CrossRef] Keller, Kevin Lane. 2012. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Keller, Kevin Lane. 2016. Reflections on customer-based brand equity: Perspectives, progress, and priorities. Academy of Marketing Science Review 6: 1–16. [CrossRef] Kerr, William C., Thomas K. Greenfield, Jason Bond, Yu Ye, and Jürgen Rehm. 2004. Age, period and cohort influences on beer, wine and spirits consumption trends in the US national alcohol surveys. Addiction 99: 1111–20. [CrossRef] Kidorf, Michael, Martin F. Sherman, Jefferey G. Johnson, and George E. Bigelow. 1995. Alcohol expectancies and changes in beer consumption of first-year college students. Addictive Behaviors 20: 225–31. [CrossRef] Kotler, Philip, and Karen F. A. Fox. 1995. Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. London: Prentice Hall. Kotler, Philip, and Kevin Lane Keller, eds. 2012. Marketing Management. London: Pearson. Kuhn, Kerri-Ann L., Frank Alpert, and Nigel K. L. Pope. 2008. An application of Keller’s brand equity model in a B2B context. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 11: 40–58. [CrossRef] Kumar, Ravi Shekhar. 2013. The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its dimensions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31: 141–59. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 39 of 40 Larimo, Jorma, Andres Kuusik, and Urmas Varblane. 2013. The Estonian beer market: The battle for market leadership. In The Global Brewery Industry. Edited by Jens Gammelgaard and Christoph Dörrenbächer. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 133–65. [CrossRef] Larimo, Jorma, Marin Marinov, and Svetla Marinova. 2006. The central and eastern European brewing industry since 1990. British Food Journal 108: 371–84. [CrossRef] Larimo, Jorma, Marin Marinov, and Svetla Marinova. 2011. The brewing industry in CEE. In The Changing Nature of Doing Business in Transition Economies. Edited by Marin Marinov and Svetla Marinova. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [CrossRef] Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Dafnis N. Coudounaris. 2010. Five decades of business research into exporting: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of International Management 16: 78–91. [CrossRef] Levy, Sidney J. 1959. Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review 37: 117–24. Lynch, Joanne, and Leslie de Chernatony. 2004. The power of emotion: Brand communication in business-to-business markets. Journal of Brand Management 11: 403–19. [CrossRef] Marquardt, Adam J., Susan L. Golicic, and Donna F. Davis. 2011. B2B services branding in the logistics services industry. Journal of Services Marketing 25: 47–57. [CrossRef] Marzi, Giacomo, Balzano Marco, Edigi Leonardo, and Magrini Alessandro. 2023. CLC estimator: A tool for latent construct estimation via congeneric approaches in survey research. Multivariate Behavioral Research 58: 1160–64. [CrossRef] Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review 20: 709–34. [CrossRef] McNeish, Daniel, and Wolf Melissa Gordon. 2020. Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods 52: 2287–305. [CrossRef] Mitchell, Alan. 1992. Branding: The secret is to be bigger than big. Marketing 16: 18–26. Money, Kevin, Arthur Money, Steve Downing, and Carola Hillenbrand. 2007. Relationship marketing and the not-for-profit sector. In The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Marketing. Edited by Adrian Sargeant and Walter Wyme. London: Routledge, chapter 2. pp. 28–48. Available online: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203936023.ch2 (accessed on 19 October 2021). Mongkol, Kulachet. 2014. Integrated marketing communication to increase brand equity: The case of a Thai beverage company. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 5: 445–48. [CrossRef] Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58: 20–38. [CrossRef] Nam, Janghyeon, Yuksel Ekinci, and Georgina Whyatt. 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 38: 1009–30. [CrossRef] Odeleye, Olayinka T. 2021. Brand equity and marketing performance: Perspectives from the brewing industry in Nigeria. International Journal of Business, Economics & Management 4: 103–15. O’Malley, Patrick M., and Lloyd D. Johnston. 2002. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement 14: 23–39. [CrossRef] Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. Macinnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci. 2010. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing 74: 1–17. [CrossRef] Park, Chan Su, and Vern Srinivasan. 1994. Survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research 31: 271–88. [CrossRef] Payne, Adrian, Kaj Storbacka, Pennie Frow, and Simon Knox. 2009. Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research 62: 379–89. [CrossRef] Pecot, Fabien, Altaf Merchant, Pierre Valette-Florence, and Virginie De Barnier. 2018. Cognitive outcomes of brand heritage: A signalling perspective. Journal of Business Research 85: 304–16. [CrossRef] Pham, Cuong Hung. 2019. Antecedents of consumer based brand equity of consumer goods retailers in Vietnam: An empirical study. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 25: 1–11. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Dennis W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12: 531–44. [CrossRef] Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539. [CrossRef] Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Porral, Cristina Calvo, Bourgault Normand, and Domingo Calvo Dopico. 2013. Brewing the recipe for beer brand equity. European Research Studies 16: 82–97. Prayag, Girish, and Giacomo Del Chiappa. 2021. Nostalgic feelings: Motivation, positive and negative emotions, and authenticity at heritage sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism 18: 1–16. [CrossRef] Rauyruen, Papassapa, Kenneth E. Miller, and Markus Groth. 2009. B2B services: Linking service loyalty and brand equity. Journal of Services Marketing 23: 175–86. [CrossRef] Roper, Stuart, and Chris Fill. 2012. Corporate Reputation: Brand and Communication. Harlow: Pearson. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 61 40 of 40 Rose, Gregory M., Altaf Merchant, Ulrich R. Orth, and Florian Horstmann. 2016. Emphasizing brand heritage: Does it work? And how? Journal of Business Research 69: 936–43. [CrossRef] Rust, Roland T., and Anthony J. Zahorik. 1993. Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. Journal of Retailing 69: 193–215. [CrossRef] Sandbacka, Jenny, Satu Nätti, and Jaana Tähtinen. 2013. Branding activities of a micro industrial services company. Journal of Services Marketing 27: 166–77. [CrossRef] Sarker, Moniruzzaman, Amrul Asraf Mohd-Any, and Yusniza Kamarulzam. 2021. Validating a consumer-based service brand equity (CBSBE) model in the airline industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 59: 102354. [CrossRef] Stock, Christiane, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Kim Bloomfield, Annette E. Maxwell, Hilal Ozcebe, Janina Petkeviciene, Vihra Naydenova, Blanca Marin-Fernandez, Walid El-Ansari, and Alexander Krämer. 2009. Alcohol consumption and attitudes towards banning alcohol sales on campus among European university students. Public Health 123: 122–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Stock, James H., and Mark W. Watson. 2011. Introduction to Econometrics. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Syed Alwi, Sharifah Faridah, and Rui Vinhas Da Silva. 2007. Online and offline corporate brand images: Do they differ? Corporate Reputation Review 10: 217–44. [CrossRef] Tenenhaus, Michel, Vincenzo E. Vinzi, Yves-Marie Chatelin, and Carlo Lauro. 2005. PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48: 159–205. Thomson, Matthew. 2006. Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing 70: 104–19. [CrossRef] Tolba, Ahmed H., and Salah S. Hassan. 2009. Linking customer-based brand equity with brand market performance: A managerial approach. Journal of Product & Brand Management 18: 356–66. Van Vught, Franciscus A. 2008. Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy 21: 151–74. [CrossRef] Veloutsou, Cleopatra, and Luiz Moutinho. 2009. Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism. Journal of Business Research 62: 314–22. [CrossRef] Veloutsou, Cleopatra. 2023. Enlightening the brand building-audience response link. Journal of Brand Management 30: 550–66. [CrossRef] Veloutsou, Cleopatra, George Christodoulides, and Leslie de Chernatony. 2013. A taxonomy of measures for consumer-based brand equity: Drawing on the views of managers in Europe. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22: 238–48. Veloutsou, Cleopatra, Kalliopi Chatzipanagiotou, and George Christodoulides. 2020. The consumer-based brand equity deconstruction and restoration process: Lessons from unliked brands. Journal of Business Research 111: 41–51. [CrossRef] Vinh, Tran Trung. 2017. Measuring customer based brand equity: A case of Heineken from the beer market in Vietnam. Asian Social Science 13: 177–84. [CrossRef] Vinh, Tran, Phuong Thi Kim Tran, Nga Quynh, and Nguyen Phuc Nguyen. 2019. The effect of social media communication on brand equity through Facebook: Evidence from CGV Cinemas, Vietnam. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management 12: 143–66. [CrossRef] Wong, Ken Kwong-Kay. 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin 24: 1–32. Yi, Youjae. 1990. A critical review of consumer satisfaction. Review of Marketing 4: 68–123. Yoo, Boonghee, and Naveen Donthu. 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52: 1–14. [CrossRef] Yoo, Boonghee, Naveen Donthu, and Sungho Lee. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 195–211. [CrossRef] Zollo, Lamberto, Filieri Raffaele, Rialti Riccardo, and Sukki Yoon. 2020. Unpacking the relationship between social media marketing and brand equity: The mediating role of consumers’ benefits and experience. Journal of Business Research 117: 256–67. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.