30 Structural

Number 3 Equation
December 2014
pp.349-372
349-372
pp.
Structural Analysis of Port BrandGEquity
Using
Modeling
G
G G Volume

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using

Structural Equation Modeling
G
Taehwee LEE Gi-Tae YEO Vinh V. THAI
I. Introduction

Contents

IV. Empirical Analysis

II. Literature Review and Research

Hypotheses

V. Managerial and Academic

Implications

III. Methodology

VI. Conclusions

Abstract
Port competition, especially in the Northeast Asia (NEA) region, can be
described as a price war. In this price competition, it is necessary to build up
the brand concept to acquire higher market share. This paper aims to provide
structural relationships for port brand equity (PBE) and explore the PBE
stages statistically. The stages are divided into three steps: port service quality
as the precedent of PBE, the PBE dimensions (brand awareness [BA] and
brand loyalty [BL]), and the antecedent of PBE (overall value of brand equity
[OVBE]). From a survey conducted with port users in Korea, the empirical
results revealed several significant relationship: between tangibles (TA)
dimension of port service quality and BL, between the empathy (EMP)
dimension of port service quality and both BA and BL, and between BA and
BL and OVBE. From the empirical analysis, this study suggests both
managerial and academic contributions for port managers and scholars for
further policy development and research in this important area.
Key Words : Port Brand Equity, B2B Brand Equity, Structural Equation
Modeling, Port Service QualityG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Copyright 2014, The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights Reserved. Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
GAn earlier version of this paper was presented at the ICASL (International Conference of Asian Shipping and Logistics,
Kobe, JAPAN) Conference 2013.
GPh.D Candidate, Incheon National University, South Korea, Email : taehwee1031@incheon.ac.kr.
GProfessor, Incheon National University, South Korea, Email : ktyeo@incheon.ac.kr, Corresponding author
GAssistant Professor, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Email : vvthai@ntu.edu.sg.

349

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

I. Introduction
The market share of ports in the Northeast Asia (NEA) region, in
particular container ports, has changed dramatically during the past decade.
After the Great Hanshin earthquake in Japan in 1995, Kobe Port lost the
competitive position while Busan Port solidified its position in the region.
When most Asian countries experienced the financial crisis in 1997, Hong
Kong was ranked the busiest port not only in Asia but also in the world.
Since 1998, Singapore Port appeared as one of the major hub ports in the
world with its strategic location close to the Straits of Malacca. Since the
2000s, Chinese ports such as Shanghai, Qingdao, and Shenzhen have
remained in the worlds top port ranking.
In the port discipline, numerous researches describe port competition in
NEA. Song (2002) discussed the competition and co-operation regarding
Hong Kong Port and Shenzhen port.1) Several researchers in multi-criteria
decision-making areas have attempted to point out the hierarchical
measurement structure regarding port competitiveness (Song et al., 2004;
Yeo et al, 2008; Yuen et al., 2012; Lirn et al, 2004). 2) In particular, both
Song et al. (2004) and Yeo et al. (2008) addressed port competitiveness
criteria. Both studies suggested two common competitiveness attributes:
connectivity and, hinterland condition.3) In the study by Ishii et al. (2013),
they were concerned with the non-cooperative game theory when
considering the case of Busan Port and Kobe Port competition. In their
study, the findings showed that the sensitivity of demand fluctuates more
whenever the rival port decreases its price.4)
In this fierce competition, price war is common (Levitt, 1980).5) In
Busan Port, the unloading charge per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) is
a quarter of the cost in Tokyo, and less than half of Shanghais unloading
charge per TEU. According to Levitt (1980), building up the brand equity
(BE) based on the differentiated service can facilitate an efficient
marketing tool under the price war.6) Webster and Keller (2004) argued
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
1) Song(2002)
2) Song et al.(2004); Yeo et al.(2008); Yuen et al.(2012); Lirn et al.(2004)
3) Song et al.(2004); Yeo et al.(2008)
4) Ishii et al.(2013)
5) Levitt(1980)
6) Levitt(1980)

350G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

that industrial marketing managers can acquire competitive advantages

using the brand concept.7)
Woo et al. (2011) reviewed port research trends since the 1980s and
found that the propensity was mainly organized by both economics and
operation topics.8) Yet the port marketing concept received little attention
by scholars with only two studies highlighting its significance.9) With a
similar context, the port choice behavior (PCB) topic has been highlighted
by many studies.10) To date, the port brand (PB) concept still remains an
under-researched area in the discipline. In this respect, only both the
fishery harbors and airports have been reviewed by some scholars.11)
To address the above mentioned gap, we will construct a theoretical
framework, and empirically explore the conceptual relationship model
among port brand equity (PBE) stages. The PB concept can contribute to
not only enhance efficient port operation but also facilitate an effective
marketing tool.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II, we
conceptualize the PBE by examining the industry features and reviewing
related previous studies. Then, hypotheses, research questions and
methodology are explained in section III, together with the design of the
survey and analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM). Findings
and discussion are presented in section IV, where we analyze empirically
the relationships among the PBE stages. We then discuss managerial and
academic implications in section V followed by suggestions for future
research directions and a conclusion in section VI.

II. Literature Review

1. The Concept of Brand Equity
Although a few researchers suggested that structuring business-tobusiness (B2B) brands is unnecessary (Collins, 1977; Lorge, 1998),12)
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
7) Webster and Keller(2004)
8) Woo et al.(2011)
9) Cahoon(2007); Pando et al.(2005)
10) Chou (2011); Tongzon(2009); Chang et al.(2008); Caillaux et al.(2011); Nir et al.(2003); Veldman et al.(2011);
11) Ishida et al.(2010); Paternoster(2008)
12) Collins(1977); Lorge(1998)

351

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

many authors recognized the importance of the B2B brand. The study by
Gordon et al. (1993) is perhaps the first to explore the BE in the B2B
context.13) They proposed the B2B brand equity dimensions using a case of
supply chain for electrical components. B2B brand equity dimensions have
five organizational learning stages: brand birth, creation of brand
awareness and association, building of quality and value perceptions,
emergence of brand loyalty, and launching of brand extensions. Hutton
(1997)14) explored the concept of BE in terms of organizational buying
behavior. The study indicated that the B2B brand equity exists on an
organizational buyers willingness to pay, and a well-known brand name is
strongly related to the B2B brand equity. In his study, a halo effect was
identified; for example, if an organizational buyer preferred a personal
computer from a specific company, the buyer would also prefer the fax
machine made from the same company. Mudambi (2000) also mentioned
the importance of B2B branding. In Mudambi (2000)s study, the
respondent groups were divided among (1) highly tangible, (2) branding
receptive, and (3) low interest to survey. Overall, respondents indicated
that ordering and delivery service are the most important factors to
branding. The highly tangible group showed that price is significant. The
branding receptive group considered physical product properties as highly
important branding attributes. The low interest group also considered
ordering and delivery service as highly important criteria to branding.
Baldauf et al. (2003) examined the BE dimensions using a case of
medium-voltage electrical equipment. The BE dimensions were organized
among brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand loyalty.15) Van Riel
et al. (2005) also validated empirically the BE dimensions of specialty
chemicals.16) The study revealed that product is close to product brand
equity, and service is related to corporate brand equity. The product brand
equity, then, causes the corporate brand equity, and both the product brand
and corporate brand equity have a positive effect on loyalty intentions.
Kunh et al. (2008) argued that B2B buyers consider brand more than
business-to-consumer(B2C) buyers.17)
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
13) Gordon et al.(1993)
14) Hutton(1997)
15) Baldauf et al.(2003)
16) Van Riel et al.(2005)
17) Kuhn et al.(2008)

352G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

Turning our attention to the B2B service brand, several studies provide
a framework regarding its relationship stages. Taylor et al. (2007) showed
that insurance service brand equity includes (1) perceived quality, (2)
perceived brand value, (3) brand attitude, (4) brand uniqueness, (5) brand
satisfaction, and (6) loyalty intention.18) In the study by Davis et al. (2008),
logistics BE was organized by both brand awareness and brand image.19)
Biedenbach et al. (2011) presented the BE has (1) brand association, (2)
perceived quality, and (3) brand loyalty.20) According to Kim et al. (2011),
overall BE dimensions existed on (1) brand awareness with association, (2)
perceived quality, and (3) brand loyalty.21)
2. Conceptualizing Port Brand Equity
In the BE context, Aakers (1991) definition is one of the most cited in
foundational research.22) Aaker (1991) called BE a valuable asset that is
affected by brand name, logo, and symbol.23) Yet, it is difficult to apply
this definition on the PBE concept because the product is an intangible
service.
To conceptualize the concept of PBE, it is imperative to review port
industry features. According to Talley (2009), port stakeholders are divided
into users and service providers.24) Port users are carriers, shippers, and
passengers, whereas service providers are comprised of both port operators
and other service providers. Other service providers included stevedores,
ships agents, pilot, custom brokers, government, and local government.
Considering the port industry features, we can understand the concept of
PBE with regard to B2B concept.
Robinson (2002) suggested a new paradigm with regard to the role of
port in a value-driven supply chain system.25) According to his study, a
port provides a valuable service in the global supply chain: port to port and
the whole trade process. The service provided by a port is therefore an
intangible product. Accordingly, we can understand that PB is aligned with
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
18) Taylor et al.(2007)
19) Davis et al.(2008)
20) Biedenbach et al.(2011)
21) Kim et al.(2011)
22) Chaudhuri et al.(2012); Tax et al.(1998); Srivastava et al.(1998); Rust et al.(2004); Yoo et al.(2000); Bharadwaj et
al.(1993)
23) Aaker(1991)
24) Talley(2009)
25) Robinson(2002)

353

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

the service brand concept. As a result, the PBE concept can be interpreted by
the B2B service brand concept.
In this study, we define the PBE as follows. While the port customer is
provided service by the port, the customer may create specialized perception
regarding the port. We call this perception the PBE.

3. Port Service Quality(PSQ)

Many trials have been conducted to identify and recognize service
satisfaction levels and customer perception. As one of the attempts,
Parasuraman et al. (1988) explored service quality (SQ) measurements,
and then they viewed the SQ dimension as a SERVQUAL measurement
tool. The dimensions are divided into five groups: (1) tangibles, (2)
reliability, (3) responsiveness, (4) assurance, and (5) empathy.26) Since
their article was published, many authors citied its measurement structure
in their studies, while some other studies argued that the study of
Parasuraman et al. (1998) has serious statistical and theoretical problems
(Brown et al. 1993; Buttle, 1996).27) In spite of these arguments, no author
has argued the importance of SQ across business sectors, including in the
port industry.
Turning our attention to the port research context, Robinson (2002)
caused a turning point in the port discipline by suggesting a new role for
ports, especially in the value chain system. Since the advent of this study,
a number of studies devised the port and terminal integration, taking into
account the global supply chain (GSC).28) These studies highlighted the
importance of value-added service and integrated port service. Yeo et al.
(2008) found that port competitiveness attributes had changed from
hardware, including facility and location, to service criteria.29)
Nevertheless, researches relevant to the port service context are rare. Ha
(2003) identified port service quality (PSQ) using the case of Korean
ports.30) The PSQ includes (1) information availability, (2) location, (3)
turnaround time, (4) available facilities, (5) port management, (6) cost, (7)
convenience. Pantouvakis (2006) explored PSQ in terms of passenger
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
26) Parasuraman et al.(1988)
27) Brown et al.(1993); Buttle (1996)
28) Song et al.(2008); Tongzon et al.(2009); Panayides et al.(2008)
29) Yeo et al.(2008)
30) Ha(2003)

354G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

terminal. In his study, service is the most important attribute, followed by

security, safety, cleanness, guidance communication, parking facility, and
information.31) Ugboma et al. (2007) viewed PSQ as SERVQUAL which
includes tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.32)
Woo et al. (2011) validated the ports role as a result of a changing
environment. In this connection, the service criterion is more influencing
than both the operation and logistics criteria.33) A number of studies have
measured PSQ attributes, but none emphasize the positive relationship
between PSQ levels and PBE stages.

III. Methodology
1. Research Hypotheses
Because several studies have different purposes, it is difficult to extract
the common PBE stages: the precedents of PBE, PBE dimensions, and the
antecedents of PBE. This is reflected in Table 1.
<Table 1 > Variety of PBE stages
Study

Precedents of PBE

PBE dimensions

Antecedents of PBE

Marketing mix;
channel, price,
promotion, and aftersales service
Price, store image,
distribution intensity,
advertising spending,
price deals

Corporate image,
brand awareness with
associations, perceived
quality, brand loyalty

Overall value of brand

equity

Perceived quality,
brand loyalty, brand
awareness/associations

Brand equity

Brand awareness,
brand image,

Brand equity

Information, personnel

Service

Corporate brand equity

Baldauf et al.
(2003)

Brand awareness,
perceived quality,
brand loyalty

Profitability
performance, market
performance,
customer value

Chaudhuri et

Brand trust, brand

Purchase loyalty,

Market share, relative

Kim et al.
(2011)

Yoo et al.
(2000)
Davis et al.
(2008)
Van riel et al.
(2005)

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
31) Pantouvakis(2006)
32) Ugboma et al.(2007)
33) Woo et al.(2011)

355

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

al. (2001)

affect

attitudinal loyalty

price

Taylor et al.
(2007)

Hedonic brand
attitude, utilitarian
brand attitude, brand
uniqueness

Customer-based brand
equity

Satisfaction with the

brand, loyalty
intention

Nevertheless, this study extracted the PBE dimensions of brand

awareness and brand loyalty, as adapted from Aaker (1996), Yoo et al.
(2000), Yoo et al. (2001), Bendixen et al. (2004), Baldauf et al. (2003) and
Kim et al. (2011).34)
Berry (2000) showed that when an intangible product has an emotional
effect on customers, the service company can be regarded as the brand.35)
Gordon et al. (1993) proposed that service quality can positively affect
service brand.36) Kayaman et al. (2007)37) adopted the dimensions of
SERVQUAL and explored the positive relationships between
SERVQUAL and the BE dimensions of brand loyalty and, brand image.
Thus, in this study, we hypothesize as follows:
H1: Tangibility has a positive effect on brand awareness
H2: Tangibility has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
H3: Responsiveness has a positive effect on brand awareness.
H4: Responsiveness has s positive effect on brand loyalty.
H5: Reliability has a positive effect on brand awareness.
H6: Reliability has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
H7: Assurance has a positive effect on brand awareness.
H8: Assurance has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
H9: Empathy has a positive effect on brand awareness.
H10: Empathy has a positive effect on brand loyalty.

A number of studies commonly regard the BE results as an overall value

of the brand equity.38) Both brand awareness and brand loyalty can be
positively connected to the OVBE (Yoo et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2011).39)
Thus, we hypothesize the following:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
34) Aaker(1996); Yoo et al.(2000; 2001); Bendixen et al.(2004); Baldauf et al.(2003); Kim et al.(2011)
35) Berry(2000)`
36) Gordon et al.(1993)
37) Kayaman et al.(2007)
38) Kim et al.(2011); Yoo et al.(2002); Baumgarth et al.(2010)
39) Yoo et al.(2002); Kim et al.(2011)

356G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

H11: Brand awareness has a positive effect on the overall value of the
brand equity.
H12: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on the overall value of the brand
equity.

By hypothesizing several research propositions, this study suggests the

structural research framework as depicted in Figure 1. This study will
show the PSQ as the affecting attributes of the PBE, and both BA and BL
as the PBE dimensions. The OVBE will be shown as the antecedents of
PBE.
<Figure 1> Structural relationships regarding PBE stages

2. Questionnaire Design and Data Sampling

To examine the PBE stages, this study selected the following eight
variables: (1) tangibility, (2) responsiveness, (3) reliability, (4) assurance,
(5) empathy, (6) brand awareness (BA), (7) brand loyalty (BL), and (8)
overall value of brand equity (OVBE). Also, 25 measurement items were
drawn from previous studies (see Table 2). Each measurement was
evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (1: Strongly Disagree, 2: Disagree,
3: Neutral, 4: Agree, 5: Strongly Agree) in response to the questions:
How would you rate the satisfaction of the following in the main port that
you are using?

357

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

<Table 2 > Measurement items

Construct

Items

Tangibility

TA1
TA2

Excellent physical infrastructure.

Modern equipment and facilities.

TA3

Available equipment and facilities.

RES1

Cargo receipt and delivery activities in a timely manner.

RES2

Handling claims quickly.

RES3

Providing fast customs service.

REL1

Meeting our services requirement.

REL2

Providing sufficient information about the schedule and

time.

REL3

Providing service in a consistent manner.

ASS1

Excellent shipment track and trace capability.

ASS2

Producing error-free invoices and related documents.

ASS3

Ensuring safety and security for ships/shipments.

EMP1

Providing service in a reliable manner.

Responsiveness

Reliability

Assurance

Empathy

Brand awareness

Brand loyalty

Overall value of
brand equity

EMP2

Measurement items

Providing value added services.

EMP3

The staff demonstrates professional attitude and

behavior.

BA1

The main port is more familiar than other ports.

BA2

We can remember easily the service in the port that we

are using.

BA3

The main port is more recognizable than other ports.

BL1

We will recommend the port to other companies.

BL2

We will use the service of the main port repeatedly.

BL3

We prefer the main port rather than other ports.

BL4

Although, the port charges are more expensive than other

ports, we will still choose the main port that we are using.

OVBE1

We are very satisfied with the main port

OVBE2

We trust the service in the main port.

OVBE3

The port brand equity of the main port is more valuable

than those of other ports.

The survey targeted port users, (shippers, in this case), in Korea. To

approach several shippers in Korea, we contacted major logistics
companies and container terminals in Korea, namely, Dongbu, Glovis,
SAEBANG, and CJ-Korea Express, and then their respective company
members distributed the questionnaires to their customers. The survey was
358G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

sent to 221 users from April 1st to May 31st, 2013. A total of 109
questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 49.3%.
The profile of respondents provided in Figure 2. To avoid save time and
collect questionnaires easily, this survey did not ask any demographic
information such as job title, working experience, type of business, annual
handled cargo, and etc. The ports used by the respondents were comprised
of Busan (27.5%), Gwangyang (11.9%), Incheon (35.8%), Pyeongtaek
(15.6%), Dangjin (0.9%), others (7.3%), and non response (0.9%).
<Figure 2> Main ports used
Non response
0.9%

Etc.
7.3%

Dangjin
0.9% Pyeongtaek
15.6%

Busan
27.5%
Incheon
35.8%
Gwangyang
11.9%

Figure 3 shows the port choice decision mechanism, which is

constituted mainly by deciding the main port used directly (n = 58, 53.2%)
and via freight forwarder (n = 48, 44.0%). The rest of the numbers are
non-responses (n = 3, 2.8%).
<Figure 3> The port choice decision mechanism

G
58
48

3
Nonresponse

Deciding the main port Via freight forwarder

used directly

G
359

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

3. Research Methods
The aim of this research is to validate empirically the PBE stages: the
affecting attributes of PBE, the PBE dimension, and the antecedents of
PBE. For accomplishing the research purpose, this study first adopts
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the validity of the 25
observed measurements. Second, this study also analyzes the PBE stages
of the structural research framework using SEM to draw out the significant
findings conducting AMOS 18.0 to verify the 12 research hypotheses. As
the empirical analysis in this study, Anderson and Gerbing (1988)
suggested the two-step approach: the validation using CFA and the
verification using SEM.40)

IV. Empirical Analysis

1. Results of the Reliability Test and Correlation Analysis
To identify the structure analysis of PBE stages, this section first
confirms the reliability test using the Cronbach alpha value. As shown in
Table 3, all the Cronbach alpha values in the test are greater than 0.7,
therefore, the results are demonstrated to confirm the adequate reliable
threshold (Nunnally, 1978).41) Also, all the correlation coefficients are
significant at 0.01 confidence level.
<Table 3> Reliability test and correlation analysis results
Construct

Items

Mean

Standard
deviation

Tangibility

TA1
TA2

3.35
3.32

0.956
0.901

TA3

3.31

1.016

RES1

3.37

0.899

RES2

3.54

0.938

RES3

3.39

1.000

Responsiveness

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
40) Anderson and Gerbing(1988)
41) Nunally(1978)

360G

Cronbach alpha

Range of
correlation
coefficients

0.923

0.774 - 0.840*

0.855

0.575 - 0.713*

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

Reliability

Assurance

Empathy

Brand
awareness

Brand loyalty

Overall value
of brand equity

REL1

3.49

0.765

REL2

3.09

0.788

REL3

3.46

0.887

ASS1

3.55

0.938

ASS2

3.54

0.788

ASS3

3.58

0.946

EMP1

3.61

0.827

EMP2

3.21

0.840

EMP3

3.43

1.013

BA1

3.72

0.848

BA2

3.55

0.799

BA3

3.55

0.877

BL1

3.49

0.867

BL2

3.52

0.888

BL3

3.65

0.937

BL4

3.20

1.034

OVBE1

3.56

0.917

OVBE2

3.62

0.779

OVBE3

3.49

0.909

0.748

0.447 - 0.561*

0.812

0.546 - 0.645*

0.827

0.598 - 0.652*

0.895

0.690 - 0.778*

0.871

0.522 - 0.821*

0.886

0.715 - 0.751*

Notes: All correlations are significant at the p < 0.01, TA : tangibility, RES : responsiveness,
REL : reliability, ASS : assurance, EMP : empathy, BA : brand awareness, BL : brand loyalty,
OVBE : overall value of brand equity

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The rest of the foundation analysis is tested by CFA. CFA is also used
mainly to evaluate unidimensionality. As shown in Table 5, we can extract
the significant guidelines of several values. Most of all, unidimensionality
can be tested by goodness of fit indices (GFIs) and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA). If the GFIs are greater than 0.90, the scores
are accepted reasonably. If the RMSEA score is lower than 0.10 the fitness
result is at the adequate level. The results of CFA fit indices in this study
meet the requirements of the acceptable level (GFI = 0.801, CFI = 0.953,

361

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

TLI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.063, SRMR = 0.0445). The normed Chi-Square

(2/df) also shows a reasonable score.42)
<Table 4> CFA fit indices results
2/df

GFI

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

1.434

0.801

0.953

0.943

0.063

0.0445

<Table 5> Guidelines of goodness-of-fit indices

Indices

Recommended

Source

2/df

< 2.00 (Acceptable)

Bentler (1988); Segars and

Grover (1998)

Goodness of fit index

(GFI)
Comparative fit index
(CFI)
Tucker and Lewis index
(TLI)
Root means square error of
approximation (RMSEA)
Standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR)

> 0.90 (Acceptable)

0.800.89 (Reasonable)

Chau (1997)

> 0.90 (Acceptable)

Garver and Mentzer (1999);

Zhang et al. (2002)

> 0.90 (Acceptable)

Garver and Mentzer (1999)

0.05-0.08 (Acceptable)

Ha et al. (2011)

< 0.08 (Acceptable)

Hu and Bentler (1999)

<Figure 4> Measurements models (standardized factor loadings and correlation

coefficients)G

Notes: TA : tangibility, RES : responsiveness, REL : reliability, ASS : assurance, EMP :

empathy, BA : brand awareness, BL : brand loyalty, OVBE : overall value of brand equity

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
42) Bentler (1988); Segars and Grover(1998)

362G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

3. Results of Hypotheses Testing

Given the structural research model, the path analysis is conducted to
verify the proposed research hypotheses. Looking at GFIs in path analysis,
most indices satisfy the acceptable level (CFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.945,
RMSEA = 0.063, SRMR = 0.0447) except GFI (0.798), however, the ChiSquare is significant at the 0.000 level (2 = 360.334, df = 253).
Looking at Table 6, only four hypotheses have been accepted among the
proposed research hypotheses (H2, H9, H10, H11, and H12). Specifically,
tangibility has positive relationships with BL (estimate = 0.227, C.R >
1.96). Empathy is related significantly with both BA (estimate = 1.089,
C.R > 1.96) and BL (estimate = 0.745, C.R > 1.96). The result of the
positive relationship between both PSQ dimensions; tangibility and
empathy, and BL is the same with the one in a previous study (Kayaman et
al., 2007).43) Both BA and BL were found to have significant relationships
with the OVBE (estimates = 0.298 and 0.959, respectively, C.R > 1.96).
<Table 6> Results of hypotheses testing
Estimate

S.E

C.R

Result

0.209

0.183

1.140

0.254

Not supported

H2

0.227

0.113

1.996

0.046

Supported

H3

-0.764

0.526

-1.453

0.146

Not supported

H4

-0.249

0.271

-0.918

0.358

Not supported

H5

0.490

0.792

0.619

0.536

Not supported

H6

0.025

0.440

0.058

0.954

Not supported

H7

-0.092

0.776

-0.119

0.905

Not supported

H8

0.107

0.455

0.234

0.815

Not supported

H9

1.089

0.582

1.869

0.062

Supported

H10

0.745

0.373

2.000

0.045

Supported

H11

0.298

0.105

2.830

0.005

Supported

H12

0.959

0.143

6.721

***

Supported

H1

Notes) S.E : Standard error, C.R : Critical ratio,

***

Significant at the p < 0.01

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
43) Kayaman et al.(2007)

363

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

<Figure 5> Results of hypotheses testing with the estimatesG G

G
Notes) Chi-Square : 360.334, Degree of freedom : 253, Probability level : 0.000, GFI : 0.798,
CFI : 0.953, TLI : 0.945, RMSEA : 0.063, SRMR : 0.0447

V. Managerial and Academic Implication

In this empirical study, the results show the following key findings.
Some PSQ attributes can have a positive effect on both BA and BL.
Specifically, tangibility has a positive influence on BL, while empathy is
positively related to both BA and BL. Among the PBE dimensions, all the
hypotheses are correlated significantly to the antecedents of PBE, overall
value of brand equity. This results of this study have both academic and
managerial implications.
Most of all, the results of this study make some contribution to both port
operators and port marketing managers. In all PSQ attributes, only two
attributes, tangibility and empathy, are related positively to PBE
dimensions. Thus, both of these port stakeholders should focus on these
two key service attributes, not only tangibility but also empathy. In terms
of tangibility attributes, the main key performance indicators (KPIs) are
related to physical facilities and equipment. Thus, port marketing
management and port brand management practitioners should focus on
physical attributes of the port. These findings are in line with B2B brand
364G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

discipline and port research bias (Yeo et al., 2008; Chang et al., 2008).44)
A port is an asset-intensive service platform where specialized cargo
handling equipment and physical facilities such as berths, warehouses, and
cargo freight stations are needed to provide essential services to port
customers such as shipping lines and freight forwarders. Hence, this hard
component will always play a major role in determining the PBE through
customer awareness and loyalty. This essential link will therefore help port
managers and operators determine the importance of strategic investment
in facilities and equipment to enhance the ports service level and thus
customer awareness and satisfaction.
Regarding empathy attributes, the results can be translated by providing
value-added services to the customers and increasing the professionalism
level of port staff. According to the survey respondents, customers prefer
the ports core and value-added services to be provided in a reliable
manner by port employees who demonstrate professional behavior. Thus,
to attract new customers and retain loyal customers, it is necessary to
continuously enhance the skills and professionalism of port employees for
both port authorities (PA) and port operators. This implies the appropriate
education and training of port employees not only on the hard port
operation skills but also on the soft aspect such as the fundamentals of
customer service management and business ethics.
Finally, all port stakeholders can approach the port brand concept using
these key findings and use the efficient marketing tools reflecting the
brand concept. Overall, the findings of this study indicate that port
management will need to focus on not only the strategic investment in port
facilities and equipment, but also the development of their intangible
resource to make customers aware of the port brand and thus enhance its
brand equity.
In terms of academic contribution, this study helps to address an
important gap in the existing literature on port studies. To date, the focus
of port researches was mainly comprised of operations management and
economic issues (Woo et al., 2011).45) Some scholars have tried to
introduce the study of port marketing management or PCB. The concept of
PBE, however, has never been examined as one of the main port research
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
44) Yeo et al.(2008); Chang et al.(2008)
45) Woo et al. (2011)

365

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

issues despite its significance. Thus, this study is valuable for both
academics and port managers. In addition, this study can generate a
number of related studies in the future in both the port research context
and brand management area.

VI. Conclusions
The port competition in the NEA region is fierce. In particular, the
competition can be summarized by price competition, and price
competition has been receiving much attention by academic and industry
practitioners.
Nevertheless, the previous studies related to the port topic have been
biased by operations and economics issues, while the brand concept as an
efficient marketing tool under price competition has never been explored.
This study therefore sheds light on providing the structural framework
of the PBE and validate empirically the PBE stages. To set up the
conceptual framework, this study reviewed related studies on BE and PSQ
and extracted the PBE stages from them. The stages were divided into
three steps: the precedents of PBE (PSQ), the PBE dimensions (BA and
BL), and the antecedents of PBE (OVBE).
From the empirical study, we found several significant positive
relationship: TA and BL (H2), EMP and BA (H8), EMP and BL (H9), EMP
and BA (H10), BA and OVBE (H11), and BL and OVBE (H12). Taking into
consideration the empirical results, we suggested both academic and
managerial implications, with the special focus on the physical
infrastructures (tangibility) and employees professional attitude and
behavior (empathy). This study is limited, however, in the context of a
single country and therefore may be subject to some survey biases. Hence,
one of the directions for future research includes the replication of this
study in other countries or regions where port competition is in the same
stage as the one discussed in this study. Another direction of future
research is to examine the structural linkage between the level of a ports
brand awareness and its performance.*
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
QGDate of Contribution ; June 30, 2014
Date of Acceptance ; December 1, 2014

366G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Incheon National University (International
Cooperative) Research Grant in 2013

References
AAKER, D. (1991), Managing brand equity, New York: The Free Press.
AAKER, D. (1996), Measuring brand equity across products and markets,
California Management Review, Vol.38, No.3, pp.102-120.
ANDERSON, J. C. and GERBING, D. W (1988), Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol.103, No.3, pp.411-423.
BALDAUF, A., CRAVENS, K .S. and BINDER, G. (2003), Performance
consequences of brand equity management: Evidence from organizations in the
value chain, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.12, No.46, pp.220-236.
BENDIXEN, M., BUKASA, K. A. and ABRATT, R. (2004), Brand equity in the
business-to-business market, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.33, No.5,
pp.371-380.
BENTLER, P. M (1988), Theory and implementation of EQS: A structural equation
program, California: Sage.
BERRY, L. (2000), Cultivating service brand equity, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol.28, No.1, pp.128-137.
BIEDENBACH, G., BENGTSSON, M. and WINCENT, J. (2011), Brand equity in
the professional service context: Analyzing the impact of employee role behavior and
customer-employee rapport, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.40, No.7,
pp.1093-1102.
CAHOON, S. (2007), Marketing communications for seaports: A matter of
survival and growth, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol.34, No.2, pp.151-168.
CAILLAUX, M. A., SANTANNA, A. P., MELLO, J. (2011), Container logistics
in Mercosur: Choice of a transshipment port using the ordinal Copeland method,
data envelopment analysis and probabilistic composition, Maritime Economics &
Logistics, Vol.13, No.4, pp.355-370.
367

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

CHAUDHURI, A. and HOLBROOK, M. B. (2001), The chain of effects from

brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty,
Journal of Marketing, Vol.65, No.2, pp.81-93.
CHANG, Y. T., LEE, S. Y. and TONGZON, J. S. (2008), Port selection factors by
shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeders service
providers, Marine Policy, Vol.32, No.6, pp.877-885.
CHAU, P. Y. K. (1997), Re-examining a model for evaluating information centre
success using a structural equation modeling approach, Decision Science, Vol.28,
No.2, pp.309-334.
CHOU, C. C. (2010), AHP model for the container port choice in the multipleports region, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol.18, No.2, pp.221-232.
COLLINS, L. (1977), A name to compare with a discussion of the naming of new
brands, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.11, No.5, pp.337-363.
DAVIS, D. F., GOLICIC, S. L. and MARQUARDT, A. J. (2008), Branding a B2B
service: Does a brand differentiate a logistics service provider? Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol.37, No.2, pp.218-227.
GORDON, G., CALANTONE, R. J. and DI BENEDETTO, C. A. (1993), Brand
equity in the business-to-business sector: An exploratory study, The Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol.2, No.3, pp.4-16.
GRAVER, M. S. and MENTZER, J. T. (1999), Logistics research methods:
Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 33-57.
HA, B. C, PARK, Y. K and CHO, S. B. (2011), Suppliers affective trust and trust
in competency in buyers: Its effect on collaboration and logistics efficiency,
International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol.31, No.1, pp.5677.
HA, M. S. (2003), A comparison of service quality at major container ports:
Implications for Korean ports, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.11, No.2,
pp.131-137.
HU, L. and BENTLER, P. M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural
Equation Modeling, Vol.6, No.1, pp.1-55.
368G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

HUTTON, J. (1997), A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying context,

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.6, No.6, pp.428-439.
ISHIDA, T. and FUKUSHIGE, M. (2010), The effects of fishery harbor-based
brands on the brand equity of shore fish: An empirical study of branded mackerel in
Japan, Food Policy, Vol.35, No.5, pp.488-495.
ISHII, M, LEE, P. T. W., TEZUKA, K. and CHANG, Y. T. (2013), A game
theoretical analysis of port competition, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, Vol.49, No.1, pp.92-106.
KAYAMAN, R. and ARASLI, H. (2007), Customer based brand equity: Evidence
from the hotel industry, Managing Service Quality, Vol.17, No.1, pp.92-109.
KIM, J. H. and HYUN, Y. J. (2011), A model to investigate the influence of
marketing-mix efforts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.40, No.3, pp.424-438.
KUHN, K. A., ALPERT, F. and POPE, N. K. L. (2008), An application of Kellers
brand equity model in a B2B context, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol.11, No.1, pp.40-58.
LEVITT, T. (1980), Marketing success through differentiation-of anything,
Harvard Business Review, Vol.58, No.1, pp.70-91.
LORGE, S. Better off branded, Sales and Marketing Management, Vol.150, No.3,
pp.39-42.
LIRN, T., THANOPOULOU, H., BEYNOM, M. and BERESFORD, A. (2004),
An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective,
Maritime Economics & Logistics, Vol.6, No.1, pp.70-91.
NIR, A. S., LIN, K. and LIANG, G. S. (2003), Port choice behavior-from the
perspective of the shipper, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol.30, No.2, pp.165173.
NUNNALLY, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
PANAYIDES, P. M. and SONG, D. W. (2008), Evaluating the integration of
seaport container terminals in supply chains, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.38, No.7, pp.562-584.
369

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

PANDO, J., ARAUJO, A. and MAQUEDA, F. J., (2005), Marketing management

at the worlds major ports, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol.32, No.2, pp.67-87
PANTOUVAKIS, A. (2006), Port-service quality dimensions and passenger
profiles: An exploratory examination and analysis, Maritime Economics & Logistics,
Vol.8, No.4, pp.402-418.
PATERNOSTER, J. (2008), Excellent airport customer service meets successful
branding strategy, Airport Management, Vol.2, No.3, pp.218-226.
ROBINSON, R. (2002), Ports elements in value-driven chain systems: The new
paradigm, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol.29, No.3, pp.241-255.
RUST, R. T., LEMON, K. N. and ZEITHAML, V. A. (2004), Return on marketing:
Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy, Journal of Marketing, Vol.68,
No.1, pp.109-127.
SEGARS, A. H. and GROVER, V. (1998), Strategic information system planning
success: An investigation of the construct and its measurement, MIS Quarterly,
Vol.22, No.2, pp.139-163.
SONG, D. W. (2002), Regional port competition and co-operation: The case of
Hong Kong and South China, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.10, No.2,
pp.99-110.
SONG, D. W. and PANAYIDES, P. M. (2008), Global supply chain and
port/terminal: Integration and competitiveness, Maritime Policy & Management,
Vol.35, No.1, pp.73-87.
SONG, D. W. and YEO, K. T. (2004), A comparative analysis of Chinese
container ports using the analytical hierarchy process, Maritime Economics &
Logistics, Vol.6, No.1, pp.34-52.
SRIVASTAVA, R., SHERVANI, T. A. and FAHEY, L. (1998), Market-based assets
and shareholder value: A framework for analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol.62,
No.2, pp.2-18.
TALLEY, W. (2009), Port economics, New York: Routledge
TAYLOR, S. A., HUNTER, G. L. and LINDBERG, D. L. (2007), Understanding
(customer-based) brand equity in financial services, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol.21, No.4, pp.241-252.
370G

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

TAX, S. S., BROWN, S. W. and CHANDRASHENKARAN, M. (1998),

Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for
relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol.62, No.2, pp.60-76.
TONGZON, J. S., CHANG, Y. T. and LEE, S. Y. (2009), How supply chain
oriented is the port sector? International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.122,
No.1, pp.21-34.
TONGZON, J. S. (2009), Port choice and freight forwarders, Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol.45, No.1, pp.186-195.
UGBOMA, C., OGWUDE, I. C., UGBOMA, O. and NNADI, K. (2007), Service
quality and satisfaction measurements in Nigerian ports: An exploration, Maritime
Policy & Management, Vol.34, No.4, pp.331-346.
VAN RIEL, A. C., MORTANGES, C. P. D. and STREUKENS, S. (2005),
Marketing antecedents of industrial brand equity: An empirical investigation in
specialty chemicals, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.34, No.8, pp.841-847.
VELDMAN, S., ALONSO, L. G. and PINTO, J. (2011), Determinants of
container port choice in Spain, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol.38, No.5,
pp.509-522.
WEBSTER, K. and KELLER, E. (2004), A roadmap for branding in industrial
markets, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.11, No.5, pp.388-402.
WOO, S. H., PETTIT, S. J. and BERESFORD, A. K. C. (2011), Port evolution and
performance in changing logistics environments, Maritime Economics & Logistics,
Vol.13, No.3, pp.250-277.
WOO, S. H., PETTIT, S. J., KWAK, D. W. and BERESFORD, A. K. C. (2011),
Seaport research: A structured literature review on methodological issues since the
1980s, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol.45, No.7, pp.667685.
YEO, G. T., ROE, M. and DINWOODIE, J. (2008), Evaluating the
competitiveness of container ports in Korea and China, Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice. Vol.42, No.6, pp.910-921.
YOO, B., DONTHU, N. and LEE, S. (2000), An examination of selected
marketing mix elements and brand equity, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.28,
No.2, pp.195-211.
371

Structural Analysis of Port Brand Equity Using Structural Equation ModelingG

YOO, B. and DONTHU, N. (2001), An examination of selected marketing mix

elements and brand equity, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.28, No.2,
pp.195-212.
YOO, B. and DONTHU, N. (2002), Testing cross-cultural invariance of the brand
equity creation process, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.11, No.6,
pp.380-398.
YUEN, C. A., ZHANG, A. and CHEUNG, W. (2012), Port competitiveness from
the users perspective: An analysis of major container ports in China and its
neighboring countries, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol.35, No.1, pp.3440.
ZHANG, Q. (2002), Manufacturing flexibility: Defining and analyzing
relationships among competence, capability and customer satisfaction, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol.40, No.3, pp.1-19.
G

372G