Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Brand equity in higher education

Maha Mourad Christine Ennew Wael Kortam
Article information:
To cite this document:
Maha Mourad Christine Ennew Wael Kortam, (2011),"Brand equity in higher education", Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 Iss 4 pp. 403 - 420
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501111138563
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Downloaded on: 19 December 2014, At: 22:08 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4439 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Musa Pinar, Paul Trapp, Tulay Girard, Thomas E. Boyt, (2014),"University brand equity: an empirical
investigation of its dimensions", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 6 pp. 616-634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0051
Lisa Wood, (2000),"Brands and brand equity: definition and management", Management Decision, Vol. 38
Iss 9 pp. 662-669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740010379100
Musa Pinar, Paul Trapp, Tulay Girard, Thomas E. Boyt, (2011),"Utilizing the brand ecosystem framework in
designing branding strategies for higher education", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.
25 Iss 7 pp. 724-739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172126

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 199044 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Brand equity
Brand equity in higher education in higher
Maha Mourad education
Business School, The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt
Christine Ennew
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and 403
Wael Kortam Received December 2010
Faculty of Business Administration, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Accepted December 2010

Abstract
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Purpose – The potential to provide customers with information about experience and credence
qualities in advance of purchase has resulted in widespread recognition of the significance of brands in
relation to consumer choice in the service sector. Arguably, what is of particular significance in this
process is brand equity – the value that the consumer ascribes to the brand. The main objective of this
research is to enhance academic understanding of brand equity in the higher education (HE) sector and
explore the implications for management practice.
Design/methodology/approach – Quantitative data collected via a self-completion survey are used
to test a model of brand equity in the context of HE. The empirical setting is Egypt which, following
liberalization, has a mixture of public and private provision and an increasingly competitive
environment. It provides an example of an emerging market where building brand equity is likely to be
an important component of organizational strategy.
Findings – The results provide partial support for the proposed conceptual model, with image-related
determinants of brand equity being far more significant than awareness-related determinants.
Practical implications – For those involved in marketing service brands, the asymmetric impact of
various determinants of brand equity provides guidance on how and where to focus marketing efforts.
Originality/value – The distinctive contribution of this research arises from the examination of brand
equity in the context of an emerging service sector market with a mix of public and private provision.
Keywords Brand equity, Higher education, Services marketing, Egypt, Consumer behaviour,
Emerging markets
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
It is often suggested that marketing in the service sector is relatively challenging due to
the unique characteristics of the service and the dominance of experience and credence
qualities. A particular consequence is that perceived risk is generally higher in a service
selection decision because consumers find services more difficult to evaluate in advance of
purchase (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Laing et al., 2002; Mitchell, 1999). In this situation, the
brand can play an important role as a risk reliever, giving consumers greater confidence in
their decision making and increasing trust (Erdem and Swait, 1998). In essence, the brand
provides a signal or a promise to consumers about the service that will be delivered, thus
mitigating some of the problems associated with experience and credence qualities
(De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998). As well as a risk reliever, because the brand is a
source of information, it can also serve as a tool for differentiation and ease the consumer Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 29 No. 4, 2011
choice process by creating distinctiveness (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998). Thus, the brand has pp. 403-420
been increasingly recognized as an important determinant of consumer choice in the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
service sector (Turley and Moore, 1995). DOI 10.1108/02634501111138563
 MIP Over the past two decades in particular, marketing research and marketing practice
29,4 have paid increasing attention to the processes associated with building a strong
relationship between brand and consumer and it is often argued that the brand is the
most valuable asset for any company (Aaker, 1991a, b, 2003; Kapferer, 1997; Blackett,
1993). The concept of brand equity is of particular relevance to consumer choice.
In essence, brand equity measures the value of the brand, both to the organization and to
404 the consumer. For the consumer, this added value arises from the brand’s role as an
indicator of desirable attributes and as the basis for building an emotional bond (Teas
and Grapentine, 1996). Although brand equity has been extensively researched in the
context of physical products, rather less attention has been devoted to understanding the
concept in relation to a service sector context. The current study works with existing
models of brand equity and adapts them for use in the service sector and in the specific
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

context of higher education (HE). The resulting brand equity model is then tested in an
emerging market using both current and prospective HE students.
HE provides an interesting and important context for the research, since
HE institutions across the world have become increasingly “marketing oriented” and
students increasingly become “consumers” (Chen, 2008; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008). The
distinctive contribution of this research arises from an integration of the existing
brand equity models which results in a conceptual multi-dimensional framework for
the determinants of brand equity in service industries. The research makes a novel
empirical contribution through testing the proposed conceptual framework in Egypt as
an example of an emerging HE market.
The paper begins with an overview of relevant literature and then proceeds to
outline the proposed model. The methodology used to guide the research is briefly
reviewed before presenting results and conclusions.

2. Literature review
Aaker (1991a) describes a brand as a logo, name or even a package that differentiates
the products or services of different providers. However, Marconi (1993) stressed that
the brand is not just a name because the name is created to identify the product
whereas the brand is created to add value to the product and give it a personality.
Other researchers have articulated similar definitions and stressed that the buyer must
perceive a unique image and added value for the brand (De Chernatony, 1993b;
De Chernatony and Riley, 1999; McWilliam and Dumas, 1997; Ambler and Styles,
1996). The process of branding are highlighted in Table I presenting several stages
starting from the unbranded stage to the symbolic stage (Stewurt and Burke, 2000;
Wee and Ming, 2003).
De Chernatony and McWilliam (1989) attempted to conceptualize a brand by
introducing two dimensions, namely, performance needs (functionality) and personal
expression needs (representation). Subsequently, De Chernatony (1993b) tried to
empirically test this model in both product and service markets and demonstrated that a
brand can be conceptualized by these two dimensions in both types of market. Generally,
as noted by Harris and De Chernatony (2001), there is a shift in the branding literature
from a focus on the concept of brand image, which relates to the consumers’ perceptions
of brand differentiation, to brand identity which focuses the distinctiveness of the brand
(Kapferer, 1997). Generally, understanding the concept of brand is the first step in order
to understand the concept of brand equity.
 Brand equity
De Chernatony De Chernatony and Riley
Goodyear (1993) (1993a) (1999) Integrated approach in higher
Unbranded goods Differentiation stage Brand as a legal instrument Unbranded stage
education
Brand as a reference Sign of ownership Brand as a logo Legal stage
Brand as a personality Functional stage Brand as a company Logo and differentiation
Brand as icon Service stage Brand as an identity system Functional stage 405
Brand as company Brand as legal Brand as an image Service stage
device
Brand as policy Shorthand stage Brand as a personality Risk reduction stage
Risk reduction stage Brand as a relationship Shorthand stage Table I.
Symbolic stage Brand as adding value Symbolic stage Stages of the branding
Brand as evolving entity process
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Brand equity has been defined by Aaker (1991a, p. 4) as:

[. . .] a set of assets such as name awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality, and
associations that are linked to the brand and add value to the product or service being offered.
Keller (1993), on the other hand, defines brand equity as the effect of the brand on the
consumers response to the marketing activities associated with a particular product. It is
clear from the above definitions that “brand equity is a multi-dimensional concept”
(De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998, p. 396) and can be considered from a number
of different perspectives, including financial markets, the consumer, the firm, the
employees and the channel of communication (Kim et al., 2003, Vázquez et al., 2002;
Supornpraditchai et al., 2007).
The definition of brand equity from the financial perspective emphasizes the brand as
a name which represents an asset which is of value to the organization because of its
ability to create future earnings/cash flow (Shocker and Weitz, 1988; De Chernatony and
McDonald, 1998; Kim et al., 2003). From a consumer’s point of view, brand equity
represents attributes such as better product performance, stronger risk reduction, lower
information costs and a positive image of the product. Consumer-based brand equity
represents the added value of the brand to the consumer (Farquhar, 1989) and can be
defined as “the overall utility that the consumer associates with the use and consumption
of the brand; including associations expressing both functional and symbolic utilities”
(Vázquez et al., 2002, p. 28). From a firm’s point of view, brand equity represents attributes
such as lower financial risk, incremental cash flow, higher rent, higher entry barriers,
lower marketing and distribution cost for extensions and protection from imitation via
trade marking (De Mooij, 1993). In addition, the brand can create stronger customer
loyalty, reduced price elasticity of demand, increased marketing effectiveness,
opportunities for licensing agreements as well as brand extensions and a stronger
competitive position (Keller, 2001). Finally, employee-based brand equity (EBBE) is
another dimension of brand equity which focuses on the employees’ perception toward the
organization brand. EBBE reflects “uniqueness of company brand associations, brand
consistency, brand creditability and brand clarity” (Supornpraditchai et al., 2007, p. 1728).
There are a variety of conceptualizations of brand equity, though relatively
few empirical evaluations in a service context. Aaker (1991a) proposed the first
comprehensive model of brand equity. He identified five dimensions of brand equity,
namely brand name awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty
 MIP and other proprietary assets (e.g. patents, channel relationships and trademarks). Keller
29,4 (1993) developed a customer-based brand equity model which focused on familiarity and
awareness, and favourable strong and unique brand associations. He argued that brand
equity is determined mainly by brand knowledge which comprises awareness,
attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and experience.
Subsequently, these and other models have been tested in a variety of contexts.
406 Faircloth et al. (2001) examine the relationship between brand image, brand attitude and
brand equity using Aaker’s (1991a) and Keller’s (1993) models. The results provide some
support for both models in that brand image and attitude create brand equity, although
the role of brand awareness was not explicitly evaluated. Yoo and Donthu (2001)
developed a “multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale (MBE)” based on
Aaker’s and Keller’s models and focused particularly on brand awareness, perceived
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

quality, associations and loyalty. The study provides a generalized measure of brand
equity and highlights the differential impact of different dimensions of brand equity.
In a comparative study, Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) examined the effect of the main
dimensions of consumer-based brand equity on purchase intent (based on Aaker’s
(1991a) and Keller’s (1993) conceptual models of brand equity).
Specifically in the service sector, Muller (1998) examined the determinants of brand
equity in the case of the restaurant industry and found that quality of the product or the
service, service delivery and symbolic image were the main determinants of brand
equity. In the hotel sector, Prasad and Dev (2000) investigated brand performance and
brand awareness as dimensions of brand equity and developed a hotel brand equity
index. In financial services, Mackay (2001) used a “hierarchy of effects model” and
focused on market share as an indicator of brand equity. Kim et al. (2003) used Aaker’s
(1991a) model in the hotel industry study. The empirical analysis indicated that brand
loyalty, perceived quality and image were more significant in determining brand equity
in comparison with brand awareness.
HE represents a context in which brand image potentially plays a major role
in reducing the risk associated with such service largely because the assessment of
quality takes place after consumption (Byron, 1995; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Chen,
2008). Hence, having a strong brand is important as a risk reliever that simplifies
the decision-making process (Erdem and Swait, 1998; Chen, 2008). That is to say, the
brand represents a differentiation tool that gives cues to the consumers during the
decision-making process (Temple, 2006; Lockwood and Hadd, 2007; Chen, 2008).
In addition, there are a number of other factors that directly influence the evaluation
of the educational quality and hence the perception of the university brand
(Kurz et al., 2008). These factors include the quality of the staff, location, size, history
and international agreements (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003;
Chen, 2008; El Mahdy and Mourad, 2008; Mourad, 2010). It was noted that many
universities adopt a brand management strategy in order to improve their ranking in the
HE market (Brunzel, 2007). Finally, the social image of the educational institution as well
as its overall position in the market are important in influencing the HE brand and thus
impact on the selection process (Paden and Stell, 2006).
The existing research in brand equity demonstrates a degree of commonality in terms
of the drivers of brand equity although there are some inconsistencies and overlap in
terms of the relationships between key variables and some inconsistencies in terms
of structuring models (i.e. distinguishing between determinants and dimensions).
 It is also apparent that there is relatively little research that focuses on the service sector. Brand equity
The following section synthesizes existing research to develop a brand equity in higher
framework which is then tested in a service sector context.
education
3. Conceptual framework
The model used in this paper builds on the work of Keller and to a less extent of Aaker.
Following Keller (1993) brand equity is presented as a two-dimensional construct-based 407
around brand awareness and brand image. Brand loyalty is treated as an outcome of
brand equity rather than one of its dimensions. Aaker (1991a) defined brand awareness
as the ability of a potential consumer to recognize the brand as a member of a specific
product category and emphasized that awareness and recognition are essential before
attaching attributes to the brand. While brand awareness is about the ability to link the
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

brand to a product category, brand image is concerned with the associations that an
individual makes with the brand. “A brand association is anything ‘linked’ in memory to
a brand” (Aaker, 1991a, p. 109) and collectively, these brand associations define a brand
image (De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1993). Brand associations may include a variety of
attributes such as perceived quality, brand name and product attributes.
A broad range of factors have been identified as determinants of brand equity,
recognizing that some attributes may be relevant to the awareness dimension while
others may be relevant to the image dimension. Using a modification of the approach
suggested by Vorhies (1997), these determinants have been categorized under a number
of distinct headings:
(1) Consumer attributes. These relate to the consumers own socio-economic
characteristics and experience with the brand. In the proposed model, these
attributes represent student-related factors in terms of academic qualification,
motivations, occupational interest and previous experience with the service
provided, etc. (Keller, 1993; Lockwood and Hadd, 2007).
(2) Provider attributes. These relates to the attributes of the organization itself, the
staff providing the service and other attributes such as location (Booth, 1999;
Scott, 2000; Chen, 2008; Kurz et al., 2008), country of origin, size (Cheng and Tam,
1997; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000) and history. In the
proposed model, these attributes include the relationship between
students/parents and the faculty/staff (Scott, 2000; Chen, 2008).
(3) Marketing activities. This covers all the marketing activities conducted by the
HE institutions as well as word of mouth communication (Booth, 1999; Chen,
2008; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000).
(4) Product attributes. These relate to attributes such as the perceived quality
of the education service (Cheng and Tam, 1997; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000;
Smith and Ennew, 2000; Kurz et al., 2008; Chen, 2008), tuition fees (Booth, 1999;
Keller, 1993; Chen, 2008), guarantees and after sales service (Vorhies, 1997;
Kent et al., 1993). Also included are university-related factors in terms of the
availability of the courses, admission criteria, tuition fees, graduate
employment rate, etc.
(5) Symbolic attributes. This encompasses associations relating to brand
personality and identity and in our proposed model, represents the overall
image and reputation of the university (Byron, 1995; Cheng and Tam, 1997;
 MIP Keller, 1993; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000; Chen, 2008;
29,4 Temple, 2006).

The model for service brand equity developed in the current study focuses directly on
the determinants of brand equity and is shown in Figure 1.
Recognizing that brand equity has an awareness dimension, it is argued that
408 awareness is largely driven by marketing activities including advertising, publicity,

Experience

Consumer
attributes
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Socio-economic factors

Educational level
Gender
Age
Level of income

Promotion activities
Brand
awareness
attributes Brand equity

Word of mouth

Service attributes

Price
Perceived quality
After sales service

Brand Symbolic attributes

image
Personality
attributes
Social image
Positioning

Provider attributes

Relationships
Figure 1.
Location
Proposed conceptual
Country of origin
model of brand equity in
HE service Staff
 word of mouth and that these attributes will therefore serve as an important potential Brand equity
influence on overall brand equity. Similarly, with respect to the brand image dimension, in higher
key drivers of image and therefore of brand equity include product attributes (Agarwal
and Rao, 1996; Aaker, 1991a, b, 1996, 2003), provider attributes (De Chernatony and education
McDonald, 1998; Marconi, 1993) and symbolic attributes (Yoo and Donthu, 2001;
De Chernatony, 2001). Consumer attributes are treated as a final set of determinants
of brand equity (Goodyear, 1993) but are not specifically grouped with either 409
awareness-based determinants or image-based determinants on the grounds that they
might be expected to have a more generic impact.

4. The Egyptian HE market

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the HE market in Egypt which
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

provides the empirical setting for this research. Egypt provides an interesting context
for research on brand equity in HE. HE in Egypt is facing a challenging marketing
environment due to the emergence of private universities and while marketing practice
suggests an increasing focus on the role of brands there has been no systematic
academic research to understand the role played by brand equity within the HE sector.
The demand for HE in Egypt is growing and the sector is undergoing considerable
change, with a range of new, private providers joining established publicly funded
universities. This has created considerable uncertainty in the market place in relation to
assessments of the quality of different providers. The limited capacity of the established
public universities meant that they have been unable to satisfy the growth in demand
(Khaled et al., 2001). This fact encouraged the government in 1996 to give permission to
private universities to operate in Egypt. The emergence of the new private universities
introduced to the market the concept of competition among universities as each of the
new private universities had to build brands in order to communicate their service offer
to the marketplace. It should be noted that the competition was not only among the
private universities but also between them and the public universities.

5. Research method
The current study concerns itself with the service sector and particularly, with HE. There
is little empirical work addressing brand image or brand equity in HE (Palacio et al.,
2002), despite the potential significance of HE brands in student choice and the
importance of credence qualities as well as experience qualities. Given the difficulties
associated with evaluating quality prior to consumption, a strong brand which signals
high quality can decrease the perceived risk associated with choice (Davies and Ellison,
1997; Vázquez et al., 2002; Biel, 1992).
The empirical setting is Egypt which has recently liberalised HE resulting in
mixed public and private provision and an increasingly competitive environment. In such
competitive environment, brands have an important role to play in communicating the
investment that has been made to ensure high-quality provision (Konrad, 1995). Since
education service as with other professional services is characterised by high perceived
risk (Mitchell, 1999), brand equity potentially plays a major role in reducing the risk
associated with the selection of such a service (Byron, 1995). Accordingly, managing
brands and building brand equity in HE plays a key role in HE marketing.
The sample chosen for the current study targeted 150 actual (university students) and
150 potential university students (high school students) in Egypt. University students
 MIP were selected from the most popular universities in Cairo categorized according to the
29,4 types of ownership (public, private or foreign), with between 15 and 20 students targeted
from a broad range of institution types. The unit of the analysis was the university brand,
and each current student was asked to evaluate two brands (a first and last choice).
The method of data collection was based on group-administered questionnaire where
200 questionnaires were distributed among high school students in their classes who
410 evaluated two brands, and another 220 were distributed among students of ten different
universities in Cairo, also in their classrooms. The final response rate of high school
students 67.5 percent (135 questionnaire completed) and for university students
75 percent (165 questionnaire completed), forming the total of almost 71 percent valid for
the analysis. The data were collected parallel to each other in almost six weeks starting
from 5 December 2003 to 9 January 2004.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Accordingly, a total of 600 units of analysis were available. Two distinct samples
were identified to accommodate the fact that current students would have experience of
the actual service whereas high school students would not and so current students might
be expected to make better judgements of experience qualities. Respondents were asked
to identify their first choice and last choice university and then provide ratings for brand
equity and also for the determinants of brand equity. The reason for collecting data from
two extremes was to ensure a sufficient degree of variability in the data and to test the
relevance of the model across a broad spectrum of evaluations. The questionnaire was
designed primarily using a range of established scales from previous studies. It was
extensively pre-tested on both groups within the sample prior to administration.
Considering the brand image dimension of brand equity and following the
categorisation discussed earlier, the independent variables were:
.
Service attributes used by consumers to evaluate a service. Attributes chosen were
price, quality, benefits and after sales service (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and
Grapentine, 1996; Lemon, 2001). Scales for the first two attributes were selected
from existing studies while scales for the last two attributes were developed from
exploratory research.
.
Provider attributes focused on the features of the provider that will influence
consumer perceptions of the value they received. Chosen attributes were the
quality of staff and their relationship with customers (De Chernatony and
McDonald, 1998), location, size, history and international reputation (Kim et al.,
2003). Existing scales were used except in the case of size and location.
.
Symbolic attributes were defined as social image, market position and
personality (Lovelock, 1991, De Chernatony, 2001) and these were measured
using a set of established scales.

In terms of the brand awareness dimension, the marketing activities that were identified
as important were promotional activities and word of mouth (Aaker, 1991a, 1996, 2003).
Given the context-specific nature of both of these activities, exploratory work was used
to support the development of appropriate scale items. Finally, consumer attributes were
separated from the image and awareness dimension and included age, income,
experience, gender and level/type of education. The dependent variable, brand equity
was measured using a six-item scale from Yoo and Donthu (2001).
 6. Analysis and results Brand equity
The data collection generated 270 units of analysis from high school respondents and in higher
330 from current university students. This is slightly imbalanced compared with the
initial target but reflected the greater ease of accessing university students. Clearly, the education
two groups differ in term of experience, and further differences arise from the fact that
they are rating both a first and a last choice institution. The analysis strategy was to
treat the whole sample as a single unit but to check for differences at sub-group level 411
during the analysis phase.
The primary difference between the two groups of respondents was expected to arise
from the fact the university students had direct experience of the delivery of the service
and the extent to which it aligned with the brand promise. In fact, a simple descriptive
analysis of the group suggested that there were few significant differences between
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

university and high school students in their evaluations of the dimensions of brand
equity and this reinforced the decision to analyse responses as a single group.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to check individual constructs and the results
were generally supportive of the proposed measurement structure. A high degree
of consistency was observed across the two groups in terms of the factor structures and
reliabilities were also highly consistent as Table II shows. With the exception of
“location”, all constructs displayed high levels of reliability. For completeness, location
was retained for the next stage of the analysis although its low reliability was noted.
All constructs were measured as mean values across individual items.
The model shown in Figure 1 was tested using multiple regression analysis for the
whole sample, with dummy variables included to incorporate university vs high school
and first choice vs last choice distinctions as well as a series of dummy variables
relating to individual consumer characteristics (Table III).
The estimated regression equation is highly significant; the value for R 2 of 0.91 looks
particularly good although it should be noted that the use of an aggregate sample with
first and last choices will tend to inflate an R 2-value because the calculations rely on
deviations from the mean. Although the variance inflation factors all fall within the limit
of ten quoted by Hair et al. (1998), this is a generous limit and the variance inflation
factors for service quality and social image are something of a cause for concern.
Consumer characteristics have no significant impact on perceptions of brand
equity nor do constructs relating to the awareness dimension of brand equity.

Variables School University Combined

Independent variables
Word of mouth 0.8767 0.8860 0.8812
Promotion 0.8720 0.8754 0.8737
Perceived service quality 0.9683 0.9678 0.9680
Price 0.8617 0.8208 0.8419
Social image 0.9683 0.9691 0.9687
Staff image 0.9556 0.9458 0.9503
History 0.9070 0.8858 0.8959
International relation 0.9307 0.9517 0.9432
Location 0.4749 0.3809 0.4199 Table II.
Dependent variable Reliability tests:
Brand equity 0.9748 0.9651 0.9698 Cronbach’s alpha
 MIP
Model summary
29,4 Adjusted R 2 0.906
F (Sig.) 214.250 (0.000)
Determinants of brand equity Standardized coefficients
b Sig. VIF
Awareness dimension
412 Marketing activities
Word of mouth 20.016 0.297 2.051
Promotion 20.001 0.961 1.272
Image dimension
Symbolic attributes
Social image 0.173 0.000 9.114
Personality 0.084 0.003 7.302
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Market position 0.000 0.998 6.253

Service attributes
Service quality 0.168 0.000 9.452
Benefits 0.079 0.006 7.651
Price 0.065 0.000 2.249
After sales 20.078 0.001 4.761
Provider attributes
Relationship 0.108 0.000 6.869
History 0.038 0.048 3.264
Staff 0.061 0.026 6.813
International relations 0.031 0.056 2.370
Location 0.004 0.758 1.428
Size 20.003 0.864 1.945
Consumer attributes
Age 20.013 0.405 2.153
Family experience of university 0.000 0.985 1.149
Gender 20.001 0.920 1.068
Income level
High level 20.034 0.090 3.645
Average level 20.030 0.143 3.838
Low level 20.029 0.104 2.957
Table III. Controls
The brand equity model High school vs university 0.000 0.979 2.117
(whole sample) First choice vs last choice 0.328 0.000 8.641

In spite of the existing literature (Aaker, 1991a, 1996, 2003), there is no evidence to
suggest that marketing activities – whether controlled in the form of managed
marketing communications or uncontrolled in the form of word of mouth – have any
impact on the extent to which the brand is valued. However, important awareness may
be, it has no direct impact on consumers’ assessments of the value of the brand. In
contrast, a range of symbolic, service and provider attributes are significant, as is the
dummy variable for first or last choice.
Of the symbolic attributes, social image (i.e. the extent to which the university is viewed
positively) and personality (i.e. the extent to which the university is seen as displaying
attributes such as honesty, sincerity, etc.) both have a positive impact on brand equity.
Interestingly, market position (in terms of market leadership) does not impact on brand
equity. All service attributes were found to be significant; price (measured in term of value
offered), high quality and benefits (enhancing employment opportunities)
 all had a significant and positive impact on brand equity. This result is consistent with the Brand equity
literature review as price, quality and benefits are determinants of the overall image of the in higher
service provided (Aaker, 1991a, b; Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996;
Lemon, 2001). education
Unusually, after sales service – based around the idea of alumni relations – had a
significant and negative impact on brand equity which is inconsistent with the
literature review (Aaker, 1994; Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996; 413
Lemon, 2001). Precise explanations for this are difficult but such a counter-intuitive
finding could be a product of a lack of familiarity with this type of attribute.
Finally, among the provider attributes, all except location and size were significant or
marginally significant. The quality of the relationship with the provider (in terms of
ability to trust) has a positive impact on brand equity as does the quality of the staff.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Tradition and history have a positive impact on brand equity while the university’s
international reputation has a marginally significant impact. This is strongly supported
by the existing literature (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Kim et al., 2003).
Overall, then, the evidence would suggest that consumer attributes do not impact on
brand equity in HE, although it may be worth noting that a degree of homogeneity
among respondents (i.e. all were part of the universities’ target market) may partially
explain this result. Marketing activities which were primarily expected to increase brand
equity by increasing awareness were also found to be insignificant. Brand image-related
factors – namely symbolic, provider and service-related attributes were generally but
not universally significant which suggested that at least in relation to HE and in keeping
with the literature (Lovelock, 1991, De Chernatony, 2001), image-related dimensions were
far more important as drivers of brand equity than awareness-related ones.
Finally, it is important to note the significance of the dummy variable used to capture
whether the university being rated was the first or the last choice. This dummy variable
was highly significant and had the largest impact of any single variable. This suggested
that some aspects of the evaluation of brand equity might differ between first and last
choice brands. Accordingly, the brand equity model was re-estimated for first and last
choice brands. The results are shown in Table IV. To mitigate the problems created by
multi-collinearity and to simplify interpretation, a stepwise procedure was used. Both
models were highly significant with respectable explanatory power. The values for R 2
were noticeably lower, although this is essentially an artefact of the data and the way in
which R 2 is calculated.
Only relationship and social image are significant in evaluations of the value of both
first and last choice brands. A range of other determinants of brand equity appear to
have a more asymmetric impact. For example, word of mouth has a significant
negative effect on last choice brand but no impact on first choice brand. A strong
market position contributes to the value of first choice brands but its absence does not
appear to detract from the value of last choice brands. Conversely, personality has no
impact on first choice brands but will tend to improve the value associated with last
choice brands. Service quality and price both contribute to the value of first choice
brands whereas benefits contribute to the value of last choice brands. History/tradition
adds value to last choice brands but not to first choice ones while size adds to the value
of first choice brands but not to last choice ones.
Finally, it is worth noting that whether a respondent was a school or university
student has no impact in relation to last choice brands but does impact on the equity
 MIP
First choice brand Last choice brand
29,4
Adj. R 2 0.405 0.441
F (Sig.) 30.064 (0.00) 34.667(0.00)
b Sig. b Sig.
Awareness dimension
414 Marketing activities
Word of mouth 2 0.102 0.026
Promotion
Image dimension
Symbolic attributes
Social image 0.134 0.011 0.250 0.000
Personality 0.173 0.002
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Market position 0.107 0.043

Service attributes
Service quality 0.239 0.000
Benefits 0.135 0.022
Price 0.145 0.003
After sales
Provider attributes
Relationship 0.262 0.000 0.156 0.019
History 0.155 0.001
Staff 0.144 0.030
International relations
Location
Size 0.111 0.019
Control
Table IV. High school vs university 20.124 0.007
The brand equity model Consumer attributes
(first and last choices) None reported as significant

associated with first choice brands, but negatively. That is to say students at
university tend to have lower ratings of the brand equity associated with their first
choice brand when compared with high school respondents. This may reflect the
impact of the reality of the student experience relative to initial expectations.

7. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of an analysis of the determinants of service brand equity
in the context of a relatively high-credence service – HE. Although there is a growing
body of research which examines brand equity from the consumer perspective in
relation to physical goods, comparatively few studies have explored brand equity in a
service context. A modified brand equity model was proposed, based on Keller’s (1993)
and Aaker’s (1991a, b) models. This model emphasized two main dimensions of brand
equity: brand awareness and brand image. The awareness dimension is created by word
of mouth and promotion while the image dimension is created by symbolic attributes
(brand personality, social image of the brand and positioning in the market), service
attributes (price, perceived quality, after sales service, benefits from consuming the
service) and provider attributes (relationship between the provider and the staff, location
of the service organization, internationalization of the service, staff, historical image,
size). In addition, the model highlights the role of consumer attributes in terms
 of experience and socio-economic factors affecting the consumers’ perceptions of brand Brand equity
equity. The findings of this empirical research suggest that the brand is a significant in higher
influence on the selection of a university. By implication, creating and managing strong
universities’ brands can have an important role to play in the HE market (Chen, 2008). education
The results provided partial support for the proposed model; using the whole
sample suggested that image-related determinants were the major drivers of brand
equity. Consumer-specific attributes had no significant impact on ratings of brand equity. 415
Splitting the sample into two groups – to focus on ratings of first brand and ratings of last
brand, suggested that the impact of many determinants of brand equity might be
asymmetric. Many factors which impacted on brand equity for the last-rated brand did
not affect brand equity for the first-rated brand and vice versa. From a conceptual
perspective, this suggests that we need to be aware of the variable impact of different
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

attributes on brand equity according to the ranking of a brand in the consumer’s choice set.
The distinctive contribution of this research is in its empirical contribution through
selecting HE as an example of a service and investigating the determinants of brand
equity from a consumer’s point of view. This is undertaken with specific reference to
HE service in Egypt as an example of an emerging market.
For those involved in marketing service brands, the asymmetric impact of various
determinants of brand equity provides guidance on how and where to focus marketing
efforts. Hence, the following academic and practical implications could be derived to
provide guidelines for the top managers to help them in improving the value of their brands.
First, creating and managing brand equity is one of the main strategic
issues in today’s competitive environment. “In an abstract sense, brand equity
provides marketers with a strategic bridge from their past to their future” (Keller, 2003,
p. 154). In order to create strong brand equity, managers should check that their brand
has the following characteristics: meets the customer expectations, reliable, consistent
over time, its price reflects its added value, it is properly positioned in the market, all the
marketing activities help in building and maintaining it and brand managers
understand consumer perceptions (Keller, 2003).
Second, the marketers in the area of HE service should realize that developing a
positive brand image is more important than creating awareness. Hence, they should
invest more to create and maintain the determinants of the brand image dimension of
brand equity rather than in simply expanding their promotional campaigns. That is to
say that creating good service quality in terms of service, provider and symbolic
attributes, will result in the development of a strong brand image and hence brand equity.
Finally, managers should realize that brand equity plays a major role in influencing
the consumers’ selection process especially in the service industry as it acts as a risk
reliever. As a result, focusing on developing and maintaining the determinants of brand
equity will help them in positioning their service in the market and hence influencing the
consumer choice. This is supported by Keller (2003, p. 154) who noted that “brand equity
can help marketers focus, giving them a way to interpret their past marketing
performance and design their future marketing programs”.
As with any social science study, there are a number of limitations in this research.
First, the research sample includes only high school and university studentsand did not
include graduates of the university in order to avoid the possibility of mixing
pre-purchase with post-purchase criteria (Gardial et al., 1994). Second, the sample
does not represent the whole Egyptian population but only the capital city of Cairo.
 MIP In other areas of Egypt, there is only one big university which most students are forced to
29,4 enter because this is where they reside. Third, the selected sample is a convenience
sample and in spite of the advantages of selecting such sample, this can cause some
measurement problems. Fourth, the researchers focus on only one type of brand equity
which is customer-based brand equity and other studies could focus on brand equity
from different perspectives, such as the financial or employer perspectives. Fifth, the
416 research focuses on the students’ perspective of the determinants of brand equity and
ignored the university’s point of view, which should be analysed in future research.
Finally, the research did not monitor whether the potential students in the sample joined
the university that they perceived as the best brand in the market.
Clearly, the model has been tested only in the context of HE and in one specific
country, so caution must be exercised in generalizing from these findings, but the
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

analysis in this paper provides at least a framework to guide further studies of service
brand equity.
A number of directions for future research exist. For instance, there is scope for a
comparison between search, experience and credence qualities in terms of their effects
on the perception of brand equity in the service industry. Future research could also
monitor the changes in consumer perceptions of the determinants of brand equity
when they move from pre-purchase to post-purchase. There are also considerable
opportunities to apply the modified framework of the determinants of brand equity in
service industries adopted in this research to another service other than HE.
It is also noted that in spite of the range of studies that focus on brand extension
strategy as a main outcome of brand equity in the product market, the role of brand
equity in developing brand extension strategies in service industries is still in a need of
further research. In addition, the new retro brands strategy, which is “re-launched
historical brands with updated features” (Brown et al., 2003, p. 19), needs to be
empirically tested. Finally, research should investigate the growth in international HE
market and its direct effect on brand perception and hence students’ choice (Altbach and
Knight, 2007).

References
Aaker, D. (1991a), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. (1991b), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. (1994), “Building a brand: the Saturn story”, California Management Review, Vol. 36,
pp. 114-33.
Aaker, D. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California
Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 102-20.
Aaker, D. (2003), “The power of the branded differentiator”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 83-7.
Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), “An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of
brand equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-47.
Altbach, P.G. and Knight, J. (2007), “The internationalization of higher education: motivations
and realities”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, pp. 290-305.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1996), “Brand development versus new product development: towards a
process model of extension decision”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 10-20.
 Biel, A.L. (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Brand equity
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 6-12.
in higher
Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F. (2003), “International marketing of British education: research on
the students’ perception and the UK market penetration”, Marketing Intelligence & education
Planning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 318-27.
Blackett, T. (1993), “Brand and trademark valuation – what’s happening now?”, Marketing &
Research Today, May, pp. 111-13. 417
Booth, J. (1999), “Choosing a place of higher education: some preliminary analysis of student
response to marketing efforts”, Academy of Marketing Annual Conference Proceedings,
University of Stirling, Scotland, UK, 7-9 July.
Brown, S. Jr, Sherry, J.F. and Kozinets, R.V. (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding
and the revival of brand meaning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Brunzel, D.L. (2007), “Universities sell their brands”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 152-3.
Byron, S. (1995), “Brand equity and market-based assets of professional service firms”, Journal of
Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-7.
Chen, L.-H. (2008), “Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for
understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities”, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997), “Multimodels of quality in education”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 5 No. 1.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Davies, B. and Elllison, L. (1997), Strategic Marketing for Schools: How to Integrate Marketing
and Strategic Development for an Effective School, Pitman Publishing, London.
De Chernatony, L. (1993a), “Categorizing brands: evolutionary processes underpinned by two
key dimensions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 173-88.
De Chernatony, L. (1993b), “New direction – understanding the dynamic of brands as molecules”,
Admap, February, pp. 21-3.
De Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: Strategically Building and
Sustaining Brands, Butterworth Heineman, Oxford.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Services
and Industrial Markets, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), “The strategic implications of clarifying how
marketers interpret brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 153-71.
De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1999), “Experts views about defining services brands and
principles of service branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 181-92.
De Mooij, M. (1993), Brand Equity, Education Directorate of the International Advertising
Association, Amsterdam, September.
El Mahdy, M. and Mourad, M. (2008), Higher Education in Egypt. Higher Education in Africa:
Internationalization Dimensions, Co-published by the Association of African Universities
(AAU) and the Centre for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, Chestnut
Hill, MA.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.
 MIP Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B. (2001), “The effect of brand attitude and brand image
on brand equity”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. P61-P76.
29,4
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-33.
Gabbott, M. and Hogg, G. (1998), Consumers and Services, Wiley, Chicester.
Gardial, S., Clemons, D., Woodruff, R., Schumann, D. and Burns, M. (1994), “Comparing
consumers’ recall of pre-purchase and post-purchase product evaluation experiences”,
418 Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 548-60.
Goodyear, M. (1993), “Reviewing the concept of brands and branding”, Marketing & Research
Today, May, pp. 75-9.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Harris, F. and De Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Keller, K. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 14-19.
Keller, K. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Kent, W.E., Lian, K., Khan, M. and Anene, J. (1993), “Colleges’ hospitality programs: perceived
quality”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 90-7.
Khaled, H., Said, M. and Kortam, W. (2001), “Modernization of education and scientific research
in Egypt”, Cairo University Vision, Part II, December, pp. 179-204.
Kim, H., Kim, W. and An, A. (2003), “The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms’
financial performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 335-51.
Konrad, H. (1995), “State and university – the Austrian example”, Higher Education
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 165-70.
Kurz, K., Scannell, J. and Veeder, S. (2008), “Willingness to pay: making the best case for
institutional value and return on investment”, University Business, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-2.
Laing, A., Lewis, B., Foxall, G. and Hogg, G. (2002), “Predicting a diverse future: directions and
issues in the marketing of services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 478-97.
Lemon, K.N. (2001), “What drives customer equity?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 1.
Lockwood, R.C. and Hadd, J. (2007), “Building a brand in higher education: why business
practice-particularly brand strategies – are becoming essential in today’s universities”,
Gallup Management Journal Online, 12 July, pp. 1-6.
Lovelock, C. (1991), Services Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McWilliam, G. and Dumas, A. (1997), “Using metaphors in new brand design”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 265-84.
Mackay, M.M. (2001), “Application of brand equity measures in service markets”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 210-21.
Marconi, J. (1993), Beyond Branding: How Savvy Marketers Build Brand Equity to Create
Products and Open New Markets, Probus Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G. (2008), The Global Market for Higher Education: Sustainable
Competitive Strategies for the New Millennium, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
 Mitchell, V. (1999), “Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models”, European Journal Brand equity
of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2.
in higher
Mourad, M. (2010), “Internationalisation: a new positioning strategy in the higher education
market”, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 185-200. education
Muller, C.C. (1998), “Endorsed branding”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 39, pp. 90-6.
Paden, N. and Stell, R. (2006), “Branding options for distance learning programs: managing the 419
effect on university image”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 45-54.
Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G.D. and Pérez, P.J. (2002), “The configuration of the university image
and its relationship with the satisfaction of students”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 486-505.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Parasuraman, A., Zethaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000), “Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for
assessing performance”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 22-31.
Scott, M.B. (2000), “Adolescent pupil decision making: marketing schools/colleges to potential a
level students in new millennium”, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual
Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Shocker, A.D. and Weitz, B. (1988), “A perspective on brand equity principles and issues”,
Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (Rep. No. 88-104), Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Smith, R. and Ennew, C. (2000), “Service quality and its impact on word of mouth communication
in higher education”, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual Conference,
University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Stewurt, D. and Burke, R. (2000), “A synthesis of brand typologies”, paper presented at the
Academy of Marketing Annual Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Supornpraditchai, T., Miller, K.E., Lings, I.N. and Jonmundsson, B. (2007), “Employee-based
brand equity: antecedents and consequences”, AMZMAC, Conference Proceedings,
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 3-5 December.
Teas, K. and Grapentine, T. (1996), “Demystifying brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 24-30.
Temple, P. (2006), “Branding higher education: illusion or reality?”, Perspectives: Policy and
Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-19.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), “Brand name strategies in the service sector”, The Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 42-50.
Vázquez, R., Rı́o, A.B. and Iglesias, V. (2002), “Consumer-based brand equity: development and
validation of a measurement instrument”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, pp. 27-48.
Vorhies, D.W. (1997), “Building strong brands”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 260-1.
Wee, T. and Ming, M. (2003), “Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings in branding”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 208-18.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multi-dimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
 MIP About the authors
Maha Mourad is a Professor of Marketing, Business School at the American University in Cairo
29,4 (AUC). She was awarded her PhD from the University of Nottingham Business School, UK in
2004; her MBA is from The AUC and she was awarded two BA degrees one from the AUC and
another one from Cairo University. She spent Fall 2006 at George Washington University as part
of her Fulbright research grant. Her research interest is in the area of brand equity, brand
management, diffusion of innovation, service marketing and HE marketing. She has published a
420 number of journal articles as well as participating in several international conferences. She is
also a Co-author of a chapter in the Higher Education in Africa: Internationalization Dimensions
book, co-published by the Association of African Universities and the Centre for International
Higher Education in 2008. She is teaching at the AUC and jointly supervising PhD theses at the
University of Nottingham Business School, UK. In addition, she has been involved in different
marketing consultants’ assignments for USAID projects as well as several companies and
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

organizations in Egypt and the Middle East. Maha Mourad is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: m_mourad@aucegypt.edu
Christine Ennew is Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Nottingham where she has
responsibility for Internationalisation and the Faculty of Science. She was formerly Dean of the
Faculty of Social Sciences, Law and Education and is also Professor of Marketing in the Business
School. She was Academic Director of the Division of Business and Management at the University
of Nottingham in Malaysia during its start-up phase (2000-2001), and the Director of the Christel
DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute. Her research interests lie in the area of services
marketing and specifically financial services and tourism, where she has focused particularly on
service quality and delivery, loyalty and retention and service failure and recovery. She has also
undertaken business-oriented research specifically in the areas of customer satisfaction,
marketing relationships and trust, including on behalf of a number of major banking
organizations. She has published some 90 articles in refereed journals, presented over 60 refereed
conference papers and produced four books.
Wael Kortam is a Professor of Marketing at the Department of Business Administration, and
Vice Dean for Postgraduate Studies, Research and Internationalization, Faculty of Commerce,
Cairo University since August 2008 to date. He obtained his PhD in Business Administration, the
University of Nottingham, England, 1997. He also serves as a Visiting Research Fellow, the
University of Nottingham Business School, England, 1998 to date and served as a Visiting
Fulbright Scholar, School of Business and Public Management, the George Washington
University, Washington, DC, USA, May-September 2001. He is also an academic member of the
British Academy of Marketing. He has published a considerable number of research papers in
English and Arabic in national and international world-class conferences and academically
reviewed journals, focusing on the subject areas of philosophy of marketing science, marketing
research methods, management education, management information systems and organizational
learning. He serves as a reviewer on the International Journal of Bank Marketing and Saudi
Management Journal. He has also taught a variety of undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
He is also actively involved in business consultancies and professional marketing and
management training since 1988 with special emphasis on marketing studies and research,
feasibility studies, organizational development and the analysis and design of management
information systems.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Kati Suomi, Päivikki Kuoppakangas, Ulla Hytti, Charles Hampden-Turner, Jukka Kangaslahti. 2014.
Focusing on dilemmas challenging reputation management in higher education. International Journal of
Educational Management 28:4, 461-478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Kati Suomi, Arja Lemmetyinen, Frank Go. 2013. The tension between a distinct brand identity and
harmonisation – Findings from Finnish higher education. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 9,
202-215. [CrossRef]
3. Ashita Aggarwal Sharma, Vithala R. Rao, Sapna Popli. 2013. Measuring consumer-based brand equity
for Indian business schools. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23, 175-203. [CrossRef]
4. Maha Mourad, Hatem El Karanshawy. 2013. Branding Islamic studies: exploratory study in the Middle
East. Journal of Islamic Marketing 4:2, 150-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

5. Naresh Malhotra, Satyabhusan Dash, Ravi Shekhar Kumar, Satyabhusan Dash, Prem Chandra Purwar.
2013. The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its dimensions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
31:2, 141-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Marianne D. Sison, Linda Brennan. 2012. Students as global citizens: strategies for mobilizing studies
abroad. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22, 167-181. [CrossRef]
7. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Brand Management in Emerging Markets 167-184. [CrossRef]