Marketing Mix and the Brand Reputation of Nokia

Market Forces April 2008 Vol. 4 nary(prenominal) merchandising immingle & tick off look into selling liquefy AND THE patsy dis repose OF NOKIA SYED EHTESHAM ALI College of Management Sciences PAF-Karachi Institute of Economics and engine room E-mail emailprotected com Abstract Pakistans nomadic ph peerless(a) mart is growing very(prenominal) fast. The most administering sucker in the market is Nokia. A possibleness was compose that the report of a smirch is a generator of demand and the competitively original note shape justifies a exchange superior footing.In this survey we assessed the reasons for preference of this fall in based on established parameters of trade riffle (the 4 Ps). The objective of this try out was to measure the extent of preference of these parameters. For this train a questionnaire was developed and administered to 240 respondents. The alternate venture that at least one of the soothsayer inconsistents would countenance a li near kindred with the drug-addicted versatile crack composition was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that or so 53% of the genetic mutation on the pendent covariant is explained by the forecaster covariant, which is signifi put forwardtly moderate.Among all the fencesitter variables the slope for the harvest-home tint and packaging ( advertisement & communication) were spicyer(prenominal) than the consist. reverting coefficients for carrefour quality and furtherance (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This mode that an maturation in one evaluate (on the measure of louvre to one) of output quality and furtherance (advertising & communication) would drive rat paper to extend by 0. 95 and 0. 85 judge respectively. 1. 0. 0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this pick up was to measure how elements of selling flow and their kin affect the smear theme of Nokia rambling yell.Though the trade mix concept such as produce, imbed, spot and packaging atomic number 18 very big in analyzing the market strategy, the scope of the body of work was mainly merchandise FORCES APRIL-2008 15 marketing integrate & dent search rivet on one aspect of fork everyplace a management virtue i. e. make constitution, the ultimate conventionulation of the correct blend of all marketing mix. 1. 1. 0 LITERATURE purview 1. 1. 0 speck denting has an superannuated history. It could be traced rump to the cartridge holders when the ancient Egypt brick makers utilize to stamped symbols on the bricks for identification and diaphanousion purposes (Farghuhar 1990).Nilson (1998) on the an early(a)(prenominal) hand fix that ancient farmers used to put symbols on the cows with the help of hot iron, which basalt burning. The word sword has been derived from the Scandinavian word branna that means to burn. In Swedish language the word flaw, means fire. Thus when a manufacturing business put both(pren ominal) marks or symbols on their increase it testament cum in the category of noticeing (Nilson 1998). wholeness of the advantages of weapons-grade trade name anatomy is that its helps in penet evaluate in a late market or a brisk market category. globalisation has created tremendous post aw arness and this awargonness is not underage on the avail great power of the harvest-homes. Czinkota & Ronkainen 2001). For example in Pakistan, soft touchs such as such as McDonald, Pizza Hut and KFC had very sanitary aw arness even before they undefendable their franchises in Pakistan. 1. 2. 0 smirch law mark off right is a relationship mingled with nodes and mails resulting in a kale to be realized at a future date (Wood 2000). Kotler and Arm reinforced (1996) were of the creed that beat differentiate equity is a wearisome job. Nevertheless a puissant spot means high shop equity that helps in achieving higher stake loyalty, name aw argonness, sensed quality , and sanitary commemorate associations. both(prenominal) of the major benefits of stain equity are brand awareness and con make senseer loyalty which helps in reducing marketing costs. post is an burning(prenominal) equity on that pointfore, it should be carefully offer by adopting strategies that would help in maintaining or improving brand awareness, sensed brand quality and positive associations. (Kotler & Armstrong 1996) Ambler and Styles (1997) are of the scene that brand equity could be measured from 2 perspectives. One is fiscal military rating procession and the other is consumer-based approach.The financial evaluation approach is cogitate to the monetary evaluate of the brand, and the consumer-based approach focuses on the brand itself that is how much value the consumers give to the brand. post equity is in addition con placementred as an stack away profit that could be realized at a future date. The brand equity concept can also cause confusion, because of difficulty in meter it (Ambler & Styles 1997). securities industry FORCES APRIL-2008 16 merchandising MIX & BRAND question Importance of brand equity demands regard for more than practicable experience and comparative search to assay and validate the usefulness of brand evaluation methods (Farquhar 1990).The recent merger and acquisition style has also increased the importance of criterion brand equity (Tauber 1988). The role of brands is straightaway far beyond return differentiation or competing for market theatrical role. They are accumulated annuities which the firm can acquire from its end sheet (Tauber 1998). Firms could have a strong competitive edge everywhere competitors if they could create brand equity through arrive ating awareness, image, and linking associations (Keller 1998). A stronger brand would always have a better understanding of needs, wants, and preferences of consumers than the brands that are not competitive.Thus stronger brands would help in creating effective marketing programs that could go beyond consumer expectations. (Keller 1998). tick off equity since last one decade has remained popular for attracting saucily market segments (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). This phenomenon of brand equity has coincided with the newly emerged still equally popular phenomenon of brand computer address (Ambler & Styles 1997). Research shows a two way relationship between brand equity and extension. A brands equity could influence the triumph of extensions, and extensions could positively influence brands equity.The result is that passing valued brand extensions are more favored. Consumers tend to rent those brands that have strong brand equity. This creates strong brand loyalty, and would make it difficult for the customers to shift to the competitors. Brand position of a firm is strongly babelike on the positive image of brands. satisfying brands are a major source of differentiation and extending the alike towards a particularised product category is easier. Successful brand allows firms to demand high legal injurys and are a source of barrier which makes it difficult for consumers to switch to other brands (Pitta & Katsanis 1995. 1. 3. 0 BRAND temperament According to Aaker (1991, 1996) and Kapferer (1997) both companies and consumers are nimble over the brand news report of what they sell or buy. Every brand represents distinct values, creates a distinct profile in the minds of the customers in respect to what it stands for. For example in beverage industry Coca-cola stands for refreshing and in car industry Volvo brand is perceived for safety and comfort. Similarly in the mobile industry Sony Ericsson is poised as music and entertainment etc.Globalization and advanced technology have make the market more competitive, frankincense firms, now, are more brand sensitive. They have ascertained that the consumer preferences have become homogenous because of globalization and the spread of te chnology. Thus, both the sellers MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 17 trade MIX & BRAND search and buyers are paying assistance to the brand report in impairment of what they are buying and selling. A consumer during his lifetime undergoes a series of ever changing parcel and situations. As a result his brand preference shifts with his changing needs.The brand attri yetes or features mustiness fit to consumers need to maintain an ongoing permanent relationship with the brand. The consumers need to have a authority in their preferred brands for continued offering of the craved benefits. According to Browne (1998), if companies fail to image a trustworthy, stable brand story, the brands growth and market share will be affected. Thus a brand paper is the image of first-rate quality and added value, which justify a premium wrong. A reputable brand is a strong asset, which benefits from a high point in time of loyalty and stability for future sales (Kapferer 1997).Ultimate goals of highly reputed brands should be to beef up their image. Low selling brands with low spirit should focus on tailoring their marketing mix and fixing the overall image problem (Baldinger & Rubinson 1996). Firms dealing with mobile handset are also concerned with the written report of their brands, and how this would affect their international market share. opposition among the mobile companies has forced them to create a brand record in customers minds. The mobile holler industry is comprised of mostly multinationals and has financial advantages in their cost structure.This advantage is not available to their purely domestic counterparts (Kapferer, 1997). Brand repute in the mobile telephone industry is becoming crucial for consumers buying ways. Temporal and Lee (2001) argue that powerful brands are the ones that are create on reputation and this will not change, but would gain more importance in the future. Up Shaw (1995), agrees and claims that branding is the art of trust creation and on that pointfore it is imperative for companies to wee-wee a reputable identity in order to maintain trust with their consumers.A highly reputed brand name is cogitateed as a favorable and publicly recognise name that reflects merit, achievement, and reliability. According to Paul and antic (1997), the attribute reputation is an mind of the consistency, over a period of time for an entity. This estimation is based on the entitys willingness and ability to effect an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion and an attribute is some peculiar(prenominal) part of the entity bell, quality, packaging, distribution and other marketing skills. A brand is a relationship between reputation and promise. Moreover, reputation is a set of expectations.A brand is a combination of tangible and nonphysical attributes, symbolized in a trademark. If properly managed, brand creates influences and generates value. Temporal and Lee (2000) also nail down the brand MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 18 MARKETING MIX & BRAND inquiry as a promise to the consumer of what the product, service, or family stands for, and for the kind of experience they can remove from it. If the promise is delivered, customers will be meet and this will keep them coming back to a companys product. Kotler (1999) defines 3 clear advantages, which brands offer to the consumers.Firstly, brands inform the consumer near the product quality. Buyers, who consistently purchase the same brand, are aware that they will establish the same quality each time they purchase the product. Secondly, brand names change shopping for consumers, by enhancing their ability to line up the products that match their wants and needs, as opposed to generic wine branding. Lastly, brand names allow consumers attention to be drawn to new products that are beneficial to them, since the brand is the first form of recognition. To become successful and hence profitable, brands must develop a positive reputation.A r eputable brand is strong assets, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and thus forms stability of future sales. (Rogerson 1983). Brand reputation involves a continuum ranging from an uncertain detecting that the brand is recognized at the market place, to a belief that it is the number one in the product class by customer (Aaker 1991). This continuum can be represented by different degree of brand reputation known on the market. The brand reputation can be good or bad, strong or weak. It crystallizes how people feel almost the reputation based on whatever information they have about the brand.Some companies have not built any brand at all. We can say for the unknown brand that, for it, no reputation exists and it does not affect consumer-buying behavior on the market. 1. 2. 0 MARKETING MIX. 1. 2. 1 PRODUCT (Quality) (Quality) output quality is an cardinal determinant for the customers for choosing a brand that helps in the development of brand reputation. Quality belong s to the product perspective of a brands identity whereas perceived quality is how a brands quality is seen by the consumers. It is one of the key props in Aakers brand equity bewilder.A higher price is a sign of high quality to the consumers. Perceived quality is a source of consumer satisfaction it makes them to repurchase the product, which leads to loyalty. (Uggla 2001). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 19 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 1. 2. 2 PRICE (Affordability) (Affordability) price influences the brand choice in two ways (1) Seek the terminal price to avoid financial risk or (2) Seeks the higher price to gain product quality (Macdonald & Sharp 2000). For some consumers, the price is vital particularly when they are buying everyday products.Some consumer may recognise a brand just because it has the utmost price, while other consumers may choose a brand just because it has the highest perceived price inferring that it is of high quality. 1. 2. 3 packaging ( advertize & Commu nication) Communication) How can a company retrace its brand reputation through promotion? A promotion that provides incentives to try a new flavor or new use will be more effective if the brand is familiar and there is no need to combat a consumer skeptical of brand reputation (Pringle & Thompson 1999). publicise acts as a major dickhead to enhance brand reputation.The purpose of advertising is to make the consumers to purchase their brands. Advertising is one of the most visible forms of communication. It creates a set of associations the consumers want to have about a brand. If advertising, promotion and packaging support a constant positioning strategy over time, the brand is likely to be strong (Aaker 1991). 1. 2. 4 PLACE (Availability) Firms rarely tend alone in creating value for customers and building positive brand reputation. Consistency of preparation and availability at convenient locations are vital for brand reputation.Any contrast between marketing channel memb ers on goals and roles may create channel conflict, which finally could hamper overall reputation of the specific brand (Kotler, 2006). Reputation is a historical notion based on the sum of the past behaviors. It is prone to change over time and is a function of time. 2. 0. 0 RESEARCH QUESTION The chase research question has been formed in the feeble of the literature review. How do the mobile phone buyers perceive the brand reputation of Nokia in ground of marketing mix? 3. 0. 0 METHODOLOGY MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 20 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH found on the literature survey and the to a higher place-identified autarkical and certified variables, a close-ended questionnaire was developed. Questionnaire was based on a total of 14 questions seven were related to personal data and the rest were related to the subject study that is measurement brand reputation in price of marketing mix. The sample size for the study was 240 and it was chosen non-randomly and was personal ly administered by my students. The abbreviation was inclusive of the measures of aboriginal tendencies and the measure of dispersion. The hypothesis was tested through three-fold regressions. 4. SURVEY FINDINGS 4. 1 MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCIES & DISPERSION The respondents prospects on the determinants of marketing mix and brand reputation were obtained. The determinants for marketing mix were product (quality), price (affordability), promotion (advertising and communication) and place (availability). The determinants for brand reputation were favorability, public recognition, reliability and consistency. The summarized results related to the measures of the central tendencies and dispersion are presented below plug-in Number One Measure of substitution Tendencies Product (Quality) Mean St.Error medial Mode St. Dev. S. Var. Kurtosis Skew ness divagate Minimum Maximum Sum count 4. 74 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 13 0. 19 -0. 77 -0. 98 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1138 240 determine (Afford ability) 3. 82 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 0. 81 0. 18 -0. 39 0. 08 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1144 240 Promotion (Adv. & Communication) 4. 45 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 08 0. 29 -0. 18 -0. 82 2. 00 3. 00 5. 00 1107 240 set out (Availability) 4. 02 0. 03 4. 00 4. 00 1. 04 0. 23 1. 23 -0. 74 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1017 240 Brand Reputation 4. 89 0. 05 5. 00 5. 00 1. 16 0. 49 3. 69 -1. 09 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1117 240MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 21 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH M ark e ting M ix viz. Brand Re putation 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Product Price Promotion Place Brand Reputatioon 4. 74 3. 82 4. 45 4. 89 4. 02 The respondents opinions on dependent variable brand reputation was the highest with a mean of 4. 89, whereas the rating on product (quality) ranked second with a mean of 4. 79 and the price (affordability) was the lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard diversionary attack of respondents opinion on self-reliant marks price (affordability) was the least (0. 1) as compare to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarisation and going away in the respondents opinion on the dimension price (affordability). The standard deviation of respondents opinion on dimension product (quality) was the highest i. e1. 13 as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is a high polarization of respondents opinions on the product (quality) dimension. Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation was negative except price (affordability) with the value of 0. 08.The negative skewness indicates that the volume of the respondents opinions on the respective determinants were below the total aim and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. 4. 2. 0 BRAND paper The respondents opinions were obtained in harm of favorability, recognizably, reliability, and consistency. The summarized results are presented below prorogue NUMBER-2 REPUTATION OF NOKIA some favorable Most packaging Most Reliable Most reproducible MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 22 MARKETING MIX & BRAND recognise 4. 01 4 3. 1 RESEARCH 3. 63 4. 5 4 3. 5 3 2. 5 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 4. 01 4 3. 1 3. 63 Most f avorableMost Publicity Recognized MostReliable Most Consisten The level of favorability and recognize ability of Nokia brand was the highest with a mean of 4. 04 and 4. 0. The lore on the consistency and reliability were found to be on the lower side with a mean of 3. 1 and 3. 63 respectively. 4. 1. 2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING literary productions survey suggests that, buyers perceive or build brand reputation of mobile phones in terms of (1) product (quality), (2) price (affordability), (3) promotion (adv. & communication) and (4) place (availability). Based on the suppositious framework, the following hypotheses were developed.H1o Sufficient evidence exists to close up that no linear relationship exists between Nokias dependent variable brand reputation and independent variables such as product, price, promotion, and place. H1A At least one of the predictor variables has a linear relati onship with the dependent variable brand reputation. statistical REPRESENTATION The statistical representation of the in a higher place hypothesis is presented below. H1O ? 1= ? 2= ? 3= ? 4=0 H1A ? 1? ?2? ?3? ?4? 0 The above hypothesis was tested through multiple regressions for brand NOKIA and the summarized results are presented below. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 23MARKETING MIX & BRAND TABLE NUMBER-2 MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS reversal Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Sqr. Standard Error Observations RESEARCH 0. 69 0. 53 0. 52 0. 44 240. 00 Df Regression Residual Total 4. 00 234. 00 240. 00 Coefficients Intercept Product(quality) Price(affordability) Promotion(Adv. & Comm. ) Place(Availability) 0. 72 0. 95 0. 27 0. 85 0. 34 SS 12. 01 13. 05 25. 06 Std. Error 0. 49 0. 09 0. 03 0. 03 0. 02 MS 3. 00 0. 06 F 53. 82 Significance F 0. 00 t Stat 1. 48 2. 61 7. 57 6. 83 7. 41 Pvalue 0. 14 0. 02 0. 00 0. 01 0. 00 Lower 95% -0. 24 0. 06 0. 16 0. 15 0. 13 Upper 95% 1. 68 0. 42 0. 27 0. 27 0. 22 R? or the brand NOKIA is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable which is importantly strong. Among all the independent variables the slope for the product and promotion are the highest, this means that as compared to other independent variables, product and promotion of Nokia brand carrel phone has stronger relationships with the dependent variable brand reputation. Regression coefficient for product and promotion are 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (adv. communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. The F-value is high and falls in the critical sphere that means variations of independent variables are anisometric this indicates that the results are not biased. Except for the coefficient of product and promotion, no other coefficient is stati stically significant. 5. 0 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 24 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Based on the survey findings the following conclusions have been drawn According to the respondents opinion the rating on dependent variable brand reputation was highest with the mean of 4. 9, whereas the rating on product (quality) was the second highest with a mean of 4. 79 and the rating on price (affordability) was lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard deviation of respondents opinion on independent dimensions price (affordability) was the least (0. 81) as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization in the respondents opinion on the dimension price (affordability). The standard deviation of respondents opinion on dimension product (quality) was the highest 1. 13. This indicates that there is high polarization of respondents opinion on the product (quality) dimension.Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation were negativ e except for price (affordability) with the value of 0. 08. The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. The alternate hypothesis that at least one of the predictor variables would have a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is importantly strong.The slope for products (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were the highest this means that as compared to other independent variables, product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) of the Nokia brand cell phone have stronger relationships with the dependent variable brand reputation. Regression coefficient for product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 res pectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 5 and 0. 85 rating respectively. ANNEXURE 1 Q1) Age (in years) 15 25 QUESTIONNAIRE (DEMOGRAPHIC DATA) 26 35 36 45 46 above MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 25 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Q2) dexterity ? Matriculation Others -Q3) Gender ? Male Q4) matrimonial Status ? Single Q5) Profession marketing Teacher Q6) Income Up to 20,000 above RESEARCH ?Intermediate ?Graduation Masters ? pistillate Married Banking Engineering Other(s) please find out.. 21,000 30,000 31,000 40,000 Doctor 41,000 and Q7) Please mark the knowledge base of your residence Sadder Defence Clifton Gulshan F. B. Area Nazimabad PECHS Other(s) treasure the following statements in terms of your do (5 being highly agreed and 1 being highly disagreed) MARKETING MIX Q8) order the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Produ ct i. e quality. 5 4 3 2 1 Q9) prescribe the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Price i. e. affordability 5 4 3 2 1 Q10) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Promotion i. e. Advertising & Communication. 5 4 3 2 1 Q11) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of Place i. e. Convenience in availability. 5 4 3 2 BRAND REPUTATION Q12) I remove Nokia as most favorable brand in terms of brand reputation. 4 3 2 1 Q13) I consider Nokia as most publicly recognized brand in terms of brand reputation. 5 4 3 2 1 Q14) I consider Nokia as most reliable brand in terms of brand reputation. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 26 1 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 5 4 3 2 1 Q15) I consider Nokia as most consistent brand in terms of brand reputation. 5 4 3 2 1 ANNEXURE 2 REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. , 1991. , Managing Brand integrity Capitalizing on the Value of the Brand Name. NewYork The Free press. Aaker, D. A. , 1996. , mental synthesis Strong Brands. New York The Free Press . Aaker, D. A, 2004. Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York Free Press.MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 27 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Ambler, T. , & Styles, C. , 1997. Brand development versus new product development toward a process model of extension decisions. diary of Product & Brand Management, 6(4), p. 222-234. Browne, K. , 1999. Nokias Brilliant Branding. Finance hebdomad South Africa. Vol. (22), p. 12-26. Baldinger, A & Rubinson, J. , 1996. , Brand the true the Link between Attitude and Behavior. Journal of Advertising research, Vol. (2), p. 84-97. Czinkota, M. & Ronkainen, M. , 2001. , International line of work (6th ed. ). fort Worth Harcourt College.Farquhar, P. , 1990. Managing brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, fearful/September) 30, RC 7 RC 12. Keller, K. L. , 2003. Strategic brand management, Building Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, second Ed. , Upper Sadle River. . Kotler, P, & Armstrong, G. , 1996. Principles of trade. (7th ed.. USA Prentice Hall, In c. Pringle, H. Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit how cause related marketing builds brands. New York John Wiley & Sons. Jean, N. K, 1997. Strategic Brand Management, Princeton University Press Princeton. Kapferer, J. N. ,1997. Strategic Brand Management. 2nd.capital of the United KingdomHove. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. & Saubers, J. & Wong, V. , 1999. Principles of marketing. 2nd ed. England Prentice Hall press. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L, 2006. Marketing Management 12th ed. indium Indiana University Press. Macdonald, E. K. & Sharp, B. M. 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision-making for a common, repeat purchase product A replication Journal of Business Research, Vol. (48), p5-15. Nilson, H. T. , 1998. Competitive Branding-Winning the Marketplace with Value Added Brands. Chichester Wiley,cop. Paul, H. & John, M. , 1997. determine Strategy & Practice.Bradford 5(1),p. 25. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 28 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand S pirit how cause related marketing builds brands Journal of Marketing, Vol. (21), p. 61-78. Pitta, A. & Katsanis, P. L. 1996. Understanding Brand Equity for Sucessful Brand Extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 12(4),51-64. Rogerson, W. P, 1983. Reputation and Product Quality, The Bell Journal of economics, Vol. (2), p. 508-516. Tauber, E. , 1988. Brand supplement Strategy for growth in a cost- control world. Journal of Advertising Research, ( August/September). 8, 26-30. Temporal, P & Lee, K. C. 2001. Hi-Touch Branding, Creating Brand Power in the Age of technology. Journal of Information & technology, 94(2), p. 67-86. Uggla, H. , 2001. What makes attractive brands different The hidden method stern the worlds most successful brands. The journal of marketing, 18(3), p. 24-41. Upshaw, L. B. 1995. .Building Brand Identity A strategy for success in a hostile marketplace. New York John Wiley & Sons, Wood, L. , 2000. Brands and brand equity definition and management. Management Dec ision, 38(9), 662-669. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 29