SMR

Also there was a noticeable mean difference between the two restaurants in the following attributes; “I intend to use this restaurant again, I usually use this restaurant as my first choice, I am satisfied with my visit to this restaurant and I will not switch to another restaurant the next time”. In terms of standard deviation, we found out that MacDonald had a larger standard deviation than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in these attributes “I regularly visit this restaurant, I intend to use this restaurant again, I am satisfied with my visit to this restaurant, I would recommend this restaurant to others and I will not switch to another restaurant the next time”. Therefore MacDonald can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in those attributes. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN on the other hand had a larger standard deviation than MacDonald in just one of the attribute that is “I usually use this restaurant as my first choice”. Therefore KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than MacDonald in that attribute. Conclusively, MacDonald had a higher over all brand loyalty mean value than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN tend to have data which are more closely clustered around the mean than MacDonald in all the attributes. The ratings of our respondents are illustrated in table 7 below. Brand loyalty attributes Mac. D Std Max Std mean H I regularly visit this restaurant. value Mean value I intend to use this restaurant again. I usually use this restaurant as my first 5.92 0.78 5.47 0.67 choice. 5.80 0.80 5.06 0.24 5.38 0.60 5.94 0.94 51

I am satisfied with my visit to this 5.84 0.88 4.84 1.18 restaurant. 5.94 0.92 5.91 0.89 I would recommend this restaurant to 5.69 1.08 4.81 0.92 others. I will not switch to another restaurant the next time. Over all mean value 5.76 5.34 Table 7: Mean difference of brand loyalty between McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN The table below summarizes the overall mean value for each dimension. MacDonald KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Brand image 6.2 6.1 Perceived quality 6.5 6.42 Brand loyalty 5.76 5.34 Total 18.46 17.86 Table 8: Over all mean value for each dimension 4.4 INCOMPLETE QUESTIONNAIRES This subsection analyzes the incomplete questionnaires. The incomplete questionnaires will not be used as part of our conclusion; considering the fact that during our follow up majority of them said they had nothing to say about the attributes. Therefore including them will result in misleading evidence which will affect the conclusions we will make. 4.4.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Our respondents sample consisted of 21 male (58.3%) and 15 female (41.7%). In terms of age, 4 of our respondents were below 20years of age (11.1%), 16 were between 21 and 25 (44.4%) been the highest age range, 9 of our respondents were between 26 and 30 years (25%) and 7 were 30 and above (19.4%). 52

Also we found out that 15 of our respondent were Swedish (41.7%) and 21 from other countries (58.3%). This could be as a result of the fact that they have not been too frequent in the restaurants. All these are represented in table 9 below. ITEM FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Gender male 21 58.3% female 15 41.7% 36 100% Total Age 4 11.1% Less than 20 years 16 44.4% b/w 21 and 25 years 9 25% b/w 26 and 30 years 7 19.4% 31 years and above 36 100% Total Nationality Swedish 15 41.7% others 21 58.3% Total 36 100% Table 9: demographical sample for incomplete questionnaires 4.4.2 CUSTOMER BASED BRAND EQUITY RATING 4.4.2.1 Brand awareness 1. Write down the name of one fast food restaurant in Sweden that comes first to your mind. 53

For top of mind recall, 31 of our respondents mentioned McDonald whereas 5 of our respondents mentioned KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN; giving McDonald the highest score of 86.1% and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 13.9 %. These are represented in table 10 below. Top-Of-Mind Brand Recall Number Percentage MacDonald 31 86.1% KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 5 13.9% Total 36 100% Table1 0: top-of-mind brand recall 2. Which of these three restaurants are you most familiar with? MCDONALD KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN BURGER KING For brand recognition, 33 of our respondents mentioned McDonald first giving 91.7% whereas 3 of our respondents mentioned KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN first with 8.3% .This is represented in the table 11 below. Brand recognition Number Percentage Macdonald 33 91.7% KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 3 8.3% Total 36 100% Table 11: brand recognition 4) Using the numbers from the following scale (1 to 7), evaluates each characteristic of the two brands in question 4-7 4.4.2.2 Perceived quality This subsection analyses perceived quality ratings of the incomplete questionnaires for both restaurants. The “incomplete” column shows the number of people who did not give any rating for that particular attributes. 54

From the responses, we found out that MacDonald achieved a higher mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in all the attributes except well dressed, neat and trained staffs. In total, MacDonald achieved a higher overall mean value than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. In terms of standard deviation, we found out that MacDonald tend to have a larger standard deviation than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in the attributes except “serving ordered food accurately, well dressed, neat and trained staffs and the restaurant has convenient opening hours”. Therefore MacDonald can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in those attributes. The standard deviation was zero for both restaurants in “well dressed, neat and trained staffs”. Therefore all the data can be said to be equal in that particular attribute. The ratings of our respondents are illustrated in table12 below. Mac. Max DH mean mean Perceived Quality Attributes value Std Incomplete value Std Incomplete The food quality of the restaurant is good 6.05 0.72 14 5.65 0.49 16 serving ordered food accurately 5.89 0.33 27 5.63 0.52 28 Availability of complimentary (sauce, napkins etc) 6.42 0.79 24 5.92 0.64 23 The drive sound system was clear 6.14 0.66 22 5.69 0.48 20 well dressed, neat and trained staffs 5.0 0 33 6.0 0 29 Customer service was good 5.42 0.51 24 5.22 0.44 23 0.28 12 5.85 0.49 16 The restaurant has convenient opening hours 6.08 Over all Mean value 5.90 5.71 Table 12: Mean difference of perceived quality between McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 55

4.2.2.3 Brand image: This subsection analyses brand image ratings of the incomplete questionnaires for both restaurants. The “incomplete” column shows the number of people who did not give any rating for that particular attributes. From the responses, we found out that MacDonald achieved a higher mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in “it maintains appropriate sound level, its brand is familiar to me, it is conveniently located and it has a long history”. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN achieved a mean higher than MacDonald in the following attributes, “the price is reasonable, service is quick, it taste good compare with price and it has a neat environment”. In total, MacDonald achieved a higher overall mean value than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. In terms of standard deviation, we found out that MacDonald had a larger standard deviation than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in these attributes “it maintains appropriate sound level, the price is reasonable, service is quick and it has a neat environment”. Therefore MacDonald can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in those attributes. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN tends to have a larger standard deviation than MacDonald in these attributes“its brand is familiar to me, it is conveniently located, it taste good compare with price and it has a long history”. Therefore KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than MacDonald in those attributes. The ratings of our respondents are illustrated in table 13 below. Brand Image Attributes Mac. D Incomplete Max Std Incomplete It maintains appropriate mean H sound level value Std mean value Its brand is familiar to me 5.52 0.75 15 5.39 0.58 13 The price is reasonable 6.47 0.51 6.19 0.62 5.94 0.64 18 6.09 0.61 14 56

Service is quick 6.1 0.74 26 6.2 0.44 27 It is conveniently located 6.81 0.40 4 4.63 0.49 9 It taste good compare with 5.04 0.10 12 5.81 0.81 15 price It has a neat environment 5.4 0.71 11 5.62 0.57 10 It has a long history 6.39 0.50 8 5.54 0.51 8 Over all mean value 5.96 5.68 Table 13: Mean difference of brand image between McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN . 4.4.2.4 Brand loyalty This subsection analyses brand loyalty ratings of the incomplete questionnaires for both restaurants. From the responses, we found out that MacDonald achieved a higher mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in “I intend to use this restaurant again, I usually use this restaurant as my first choice and I will not switch to another restaurant the next time”. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN achieved a mean higher than MacDonald in the following attributes, “I regularly visit this restaurant, and I am satisfied with my visit to this restaurant. There was no difference between the two restaurant in I would recommend this restaurant to others. In total, MacDonald achieved a higher overall mean value than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. In terms of standard deviation, we found out that MacDonald had a larger standard deviation than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in these attributes “I intend to use this restaurant again, I am satisfied with my visit to this restaurant and I will not switch to 57

another restaurant the next time”. Therefore MacDonald can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in those. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN tends to have a larger standard deviation than MacDonald in these attributes“I regularly visit this restaurant, I usually use this restaurant as my first choice and I would recommend this restaurant to others”. Therefore KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN can be said to have a larger degree of dispersion of data around the mean than MacDonald in those attributes. The ratings of our respondents are illustrated in table 14 below. Brand Loyalty Attributes Mac Std Incomplete Max Std Incomplete M H mean mean value value I regularly visit this restaurant 5.38 0.50 15 5.41 0.59 14 I intend to use this restaurant 5.53 0.52 21 5.29 0.47 19 again 5.75 0.45 20 5.65 0.49 19 I usually use this restaurant as 5.70 0.78 9 5.76 0.72 11 my first choice 5.14 0.66 15 5.14 0.73 21 I am satisfied with my visit to 4.89 0.96 18 4.68 0.82 17 this restaurant I would recommend this restaurant to others I will not switch to another restaurant the next time Over all Mean value 5.40 5.32 Table 14: Mean difference of brand loyalty between McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 58

The table below summarizes the overall mean value of the incomplete questionnaires for each dimension. MacDonald KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Brand image 5.96 5.68 Perceived quality 5.90 5.71 Brand loyalty 5.40 5.32 Total 17.26 16.71 Table 15: Over all mean value for each dimension 4.4.3 Comparison between Complete and Incomplete Questionnaires. in terms of gender, in the both complete and incomplete questionnaire, female tender to be more regular visitor in the fast food restaurant. Also we notice that the average age of consumers was approximately 25 years for both the complete and in complete questionnaire. This finding gives us a reasonable ground to conclude that our sample profile is a representative of the actual customer profile of both fast food restaurants. In terms of nationality, we found out that the majority of our respondent that filled the complete questionnaire were Swedish and the incomplete questionnaires were mostly filled by other. This could be as a result of the fact that they are new in Sweden and not so familiar with most of the attributes. It also gave us a reasonable ground to actually exclude the incomplete questionnaire. With respect to brand awareness, MacDonald tender to be more popular in the mind of our respondent in both the complete and incomplete questionnaire. This can be attributed to the fact that MacDonald focuses its advertisement strength at increasing customer’s awareness of their brand or has a better brand management strategy. 59

Conclusively we also found out that MacDonald achieved a higher over all mean value than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in all the dimensions of customer based brand equity in both the complete and incomplete questionnaires. CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 5.1 CONCULSION This is the concluding chapter of our thesis, which will bring our purpose of writing this thesis into context. This chapter also aims at providing recommendations to our case study, McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. However, we will like to emphasize here that our research is applicable to all fast food industries and not subjected to McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN only. Also we will like to say that we did not choose to do a case study of McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN because we perceive they had problems but because we wanted to find out the importance of consumer-based 60

brand equity on consumer’s perception of brand. Therefore, we will be making recommendations to our case study, as well as other fast food industries. 5.1.1 Which Among These Three Dimensions of Customer Based-Brand Equity (Brand Image, Brand Loyalty and Perceived Quality) Appears To Have the Least Brand Equity Rating? As earlier predicted, all the dimension of customer based brand equity will have influence on consumer’s perception of brand. From our finding, among these three dimensions of consumer-based brand equity i.e. perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand image, brand loyalty which has to do with customer’s devotion to a brand, appears to have the least brand equity rating. Brand loyalty got the lowest rating in the three dimensions for both restaurants. Although the three dimensions are important in brand equity construct. The fact that brand loyalty may had the least influence on consumer’s perception of brand is a logical issue because even when the consumers seems to be satisfied they appear not to be too loyal. One possible reason could be as a result of the fact that consumers give more attention to other factors such as price etc. when they are making their choices. According to Oliver (1999, p.34), brand loyalty is a “deeply held commitment”. From our finding it could be seen that consumer’s loyalty to a brand is a continuous process which is built over a long period of time. And as a result, building of brand loyalty could be a difficult job when compared to other dimensions. Perceived quality got the highest brand equity rating. Our finding also shows that MacDonald which got the highest brand equity rating also got the highest perceived quality score. Brand image got the second highest brand equity rating. 61

5.1.2 Does Customer Based-Brand Equity Differ Between The Two Restaurants With Respect To Each Attribute Of Brand Awareness, Brand Image, Perceived Quality And Brand Loyalty? According to our study, only respondents who are regular visitors to both restaurants were asked to participate in the survey. One advantage of this was to get trustworthy answers from our respondents past experiences of their visit to both restaurants. Having done this, we gather that with respect to brand awareness, McDonald appears to be more popular in the mind of our respondent than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN despite the fact that they are familiar with both brands. 51 out of 64 of our respondent had McDonald as their top of mind brands. Also in brand recognition, 52 out of 64 listed McDonald first. Brand awareness has been seen by many researchers to play a vital role in consumer’s perceptions of brand which is in line with our study. In Lin and Chang (2003) study, they found out that brand awareness had the most powerful influence on consumers purchase decision. Hoyer and brown (1990) as cited by Lin and Chang (2003), their study examined the importance of brand awareness in consumers decision making process and they found out that brand awareness was a primary factor. Also Jiang (2004) found out in his study that brand recognition has an effect on consumer’s choice. In our study, brand awareness can be seen to be a dimension that has a strong influence on consumer’s perception of brand. With Brand image, we found out that there were some mean differences between McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN on all the eight attributes of brand image except “the price is reasonable and it has a neat environment”. Respondents rated McDonald higher than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN on the following attributes “its brand is familiar to me, it is conveniently located and it has a long history”. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN tends to achieve high perceived qualities in attributes such as ‘it maintains appropriate sound level, service is fast, it taste good compare with price”. 62

From our respondents rating of brand image attributes, it can be seen to be an important factor on consumer’s perception of brand. Marketing researchers such as Keller (1993) have proposed that brand image is an important element of brand equity. Krishnan (1996) found out that brands with high brand equity have the tendency of having more positive brand associations than those with low brand equity. Kwon (1990) reported that positive brand image is most likely associated with preferred brands. There were five mean differences between McDonald and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in terms of perceived quality. McDonald obtained a higher perceived quality in these attribute “serving ordered food accurately, availability of complimentary and convenient opening hours” and KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN achieved a higher mean value in “food quality is good. There was no mean difference between the two restaurants in attributes such as “drive sound system was clear and well dressed neat and clean staffs”. From our respondents rating of perceived quality attributes, it can be seen that perceived quality is important on consumer’s perception of brand. As Justified by Researchers such as Carman (1990), Parasuraman et al (1985, 1998) perceived quality is said to have a positive effect on customers’ choice of brand. Boulding et al (1993) considered service quality as one of the factors leading to purchase intention; a direct effect was obtained in their research. In Cronin and Taylor (1992) as cited by Juan Carlos et al (2001) direct effect was not significant whereas there was an indirect effect which rose from satisfaction. Taylor and Baker (1994) speculated that perceived quality linked with satisfaction has an effect on consumers purchase intention. In other words, in our study, perceived quality was found to have the highest positive influence on consumer’s perception of brand With respect to Brand loyalty, respondents posed a higher brand loyalty to McDonald than KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. McDonald achieved a higher brand loyalty than 63

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN in all the attributes except for “I am satisfied with my visit to this restaurant and I would recommend these restaurants to others”. 5.2 RECOMMENDATION Brand equity as we have discussed so far could be viewed either from financial perspective or customer’s perspective. Our present study focused on consumers based brand equity and its importance on consumer’s perception of brand in fast food industry. Consumer-based brand equity here is assumed to make up of brand awareness, perceived quality, brand image and brand loyalty based on Aaker (1991, 1996) conceptualization, as adopted by researchers such as Keller 1993; Motameni Shahrokha 1998; Low and Lamb 2000; Prasad and Dev 200; Yoo and Donthun 2001. The general finding of our study confirms our original assumptions that all the four dimension of customer based brand equity will have influence on consumer’s perception of brand. For brand awareness, we used two attributes to measures it, which is quiet small when compared to the attributes of the other three dimensions. Despite that, from our respondents rating, it can be seen to be the most important dimension influencing customer’s perception of brand. From our findings, we therefore recommend that fast food restaurant operators should focus most of its advertisement strength at increasing customer’s awareness of their brand, so that customers can consider their brand in their choice of alternative. Therefore brand awareness should be strongly considered by fast food operators when trying to build brand equity from customer’s point of view. In other words, top of mind advertising is another very important method for fast food operators, to encourage consumers in making their purchase choice based only on advertising. Although many and consecutive promotional activities through mass media is very popular in fast food industry, beside that, other more advanced and creative ways of reaching out to customers and improving a firms brand awareness exist. For example, support activities and charity involvement in cultural, sports, social and other kinds of public events. 64

Another notable conclusion that may be deduced from our study is that brands with high brand equity have the tendency of having more perceived qualities. Apart from good quality product and services such as serving ordered food accurately and good food quality, good sound system, neat appearance of staffs, convenient operating hours, good customer service etc should be a major priority of fast food restaurant operators. As these are good for the business and enhances the brand. One important way a fast food restaurant can make its service delivery process different from others is by its physical environment, staffs and their service delivery process. It should not be forgotten that well trained staffs enhances the capability of most fast food restaurants. The present study indicates that well trained staffs should be involved in a fast food restaurant’s effort in gaining competitive advantage and standardization. Our recommendations for fast food operators is that they should provide good quality food at an affordable price in a cheerful atmosphere with a suitable sound level that is most likely to attract young customers which from our study are seen to be regular visitors in fast food restaurant. Also convenient operation hour is another attribute which fast food restaurant operator should put into consideration as constant effective operational policies will help to advance their operating performance. According to Lin and Chang (2003), convenience of a brand has a significant effect on consumers buying decision. Side activities like play ground for children, internet access etc are also important ways of encouraging customers. Most McDonald these days as we can see has included play ground for children. In our study, brand image was seen to also have influence on consumer’s perception of brand. According to Kotler et al (1999), brand image is a “set of belief that consumers hold about a particular brand”. This belief influencing image may differ from the real attributes. This could be as a result of the customer’s individual encounter and possibly the impact of differences in perception, misrepresentation or recognition. In view of this possible 65

difference between image and actuality, fast food restaurant operators should bear in mind that building and managing of brand image attributes are long term measures. In other words fast food restaurant marketers should have a detailed knowledge and understanding of the main attributes of brand image which include appropriate sound level, frequent dinning area, reasonable price, quick service, convenient location, neat environment, long history, familiarity etc. For example in our study, McDonald image was perceived to be more competent and existing than that of KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN. In actual implementation of course, a comprehensive research into the quality of the brand and its competitive positioning would be required. Finally in other to earn high sales volume, brand awareness and perceived quality may not be enough, brand image also has to be managed properly. From our study Brand loyalty can be seen to be the least dimension influencing consumer’s perception of brand in fast food industry. One possible reason could be that consumers place importance on other factors such as price discount etc, when they are faced with variety of choice when selecting fast food restaurant. They may intend to visit again and recommend others, based on their satisfaction which is built over time from experience with service and product, word of mouth, recollection from promotion and advertisement and from other customers report. Therefore fast food restaurant operators should bear in mind that building brand loyalty could be a difficult job when compared to other casual- dinning or upscale restaurants. Conclusively, the result of our thesis shows that customer based-brand equity has a great importance on consumer’s perception of brand and the lack of brand equity will weaken consumer’s perception. Therefore there should be a continuous effort by fast food restaurant marketers to enhance customers based- brand equity. Fast food operators should bear in mind that old familiar brand dies, as a result of poor management of brand, overextension and lack of investment in developing brand equity and values. 66

5.3 FUTURE RESEARCH We think it will be of interest for researcher to map brand equity ratings with actual consumer behavior (purchasing).A future can also be done by making an exploratory study with interviews of managers at the sites. We dealt equally with all the items in our survey. Some may have weighed more than others which may provide us with misleading results. In other words, a future research can be done with food quality central to the concept quality than accessories such as napkins and sauce. 67

REFERENCE Aaker, D. A., (1991). “Managing brand equity capitalizing on the value of a brand name”. New York: Free Press. Aaker, D. A., (1996). “Building strong brand”. New York: Free Press. Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (1995). Marketing research. New York: Wiley. Agarwal, M. K., & Rao, V. R. (1996). “An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity”. Marketing Letters, 7(3), 237–247. Ailawadi, K.L., Lehman, D.R., & Neslin, S.A. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67, 1–17. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. Bender, A. E., & Bender, D. A. (1993). “A dictionary of food and nutrition”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2004) “Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective”, (6th: New York: NY: McGraw-Hill. Berry, L. (1999) Discovering the Soul of Service, New York: The Free Press. Bateson, J.E.G. and Hoffman, K.D. (1999) Managing Services Marketing, Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press Blackston, M. (1995). The qualitative dimension of brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), RC2–RC7 Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. and Engel, J.F. (2001) Consumer Behavior, 9th edn, Orlando, FL: Harcourt Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. & Zeithaml, V. (1993) “A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: from Expectations to Behavioral Intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research, XXX, pp. 7-27. Carmen & J. M, (1990) “Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of The Seven dimensions”. Journal of Retailing, 66, pp. 33-55. Cobb-Walgren, C.J. ,Ruble, C.A. , Donthun, N. (1993) “Brand equity, Brand preference and Purchase intension” journal of advertising ,24(3), 25-40. 68

Chen, C.F., Chang, Y-Y. “Airline brand Equity, Brand Preference and Purchase Intensions –The Moderating Effect of Switching Cost” Journal of Air Transport Management, 14 (1) 40-42. . Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M.B. (2001). “The chain of effect from brand trust and brand effect to brand performance; the role of brand loyalty”. Journal of marketing, 65 (2), 81-93. Cronin, J.S., & Taylor, (1992) “Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension”. Journal of Marketing, pp. 55-88. Dalqvist, V., and Linde m., (2002) Reklameffekter.malmo.liber. Data Monitor (2005), “Fast food in Asia-Pacific: industry profile”, available at: www.datamonitor.Com De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, 3rd edn, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Dekimpe, M.G., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Mellens, M.P., & Van Den Abeele, (1997) “Decline and Variability in Brand Loyalty”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, No.5, pp. 405-20. Dobni, D., Goldberg, M.E., Gorn, G., Pollay, R.W. G.M & Zinkhan, “In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis Advances for Consumer,”17, 110-118. Doyle, P. (2002) Marketing Management and Strategy, 3rd edn, Harlow: Pearson Education Engel, James F., Roger D., Blackwell and Paul W. Miniard (1993) “Consumer Behavior”. Orlando, Fl: The Dryden Press. Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), \"Managing Brand Equity,\" Marketing Research, 1 (September), 24-33. Feldwick, P. (2002) what is Brand Equity, Anyway? Henley-on-Thames: World Advertising Research Center Ghauri, P. and Gronhaug, K. (2005) “Research Methods in Business Studies: A practical Guide”. (3rd edn.), Pearson Education Limited Hanson, R. (2002). “Turkey HRI food service sector report”. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Gain Report #TU2012. Available from http://fas.usda.gov 69

Hoyer, W.D., Brown, S.P. (1990), \"Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product\", Vol. 17 No. September, pp.141-8. Hussey, j. and Hussey, R. (1997) “Business Research: A practical Guide for undergraduate and post graduate studies”. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd. Jiang, P (2004) “the role of brand name in customization decision: a search vs. experience perspective” Journal of product and brand management 13(2) 73-83. Jekanowski, M., Binkley, J. K., & Eales, J. (1997). ”The impact of demographics, market characteristics, and prices on the consumption of food-away-from home”. Western agricultural economics association meeting, July 13–16, Reno/Sparks, Nevada. Jekanowski, M., Binkley, J. K., & Eales, J. (2001). “Convenience, accessibility, and the demand for fast food”. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26(1), 58–74. Jean-Noel Kapferer (2004) “the new strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term” (3rd edition) kogan page, limited. Jones, J. and Slater, J.S. (2003) what’s in a Name? – Advertising and the Concept of Brands, 2nd edn, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Keller K.L (1993) “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customers-Based Brand Equity” Journal of Marketing Management 57, 1-12. Kapferer, J. N. (1994). Strategic brand management. New York: Free Press Keller, K. L. (1998). “Strategic brand management, building, measuring, and managing brand equity”. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Keller, K.L. (2003), “Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity” Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kotler, P. (2000) Marketing Management, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International. Kotler, Wong, Saunder and Strong “principle of marketing” (2005), fourth edition prentice hall. Kotler p. and Armstrong, G. (2004) “principle of marketing” (10th edition) New Jersey: prentice hall Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), \"Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer- Based Brand Equity,\" Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22. 70

Kotler p., Armstrong G., Saunder J., and Wong, v., (1999) “principle of marketing’ (2nd edn) England; prentice hall. Kim, H., Kim, W.G. and an, J.A. (2003) the effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms’ financial performance, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), pp.335–51 Krishnan, H., Shanker and Dipankar Chakravarti (1993), \"Varieties of Brand Memory Induced by Advertising: Determinants, Measures, and Relationships in Brand Equity and Advertising” David A. Aaker and Alexander L. Biel, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krishnan & H.S. (1996) “Characteristics of Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 389-405. Krishnan, B.C. and Hartline, M.D. (2001) Brand equity: is it more important in services? Journal of Services Marketing, 15(5), pp.328–42 Kwon & Yoon-Hee. (1990) “Brand Name Awareness and Image Perception of Women’s Daytime Apparel: Perceptual and Motor Skills”, 71, 743-752. Kvale, S. (1996) the social construction of validity. In Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: SA Lassar, Walfried, Banwari Mittal & Arun Sharma. (1995) “Measuring Customer- Based Brand Equity” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4. Lin, M.Y., and Chang, L.H (2003) “Determinant of habitual behavior for national and leading brands in chain” journal of product and brand management (94- 107) Low, G.S and Lamb jr.C.W (2000) “The measurement and dimensionality of brand association” Journal of product and brand management 9(6) 350-368 Macdonald E.K and sharp (2004) “brand awareness effect on consumer’s decision making for a common repeat purchase product”: (replication) journal of business research, 48, 5-15. Mackay, M.M. (2001b) Application of brand equity measures in services markets, Journal of Services Marketing, 15(3), pp.210–21 Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala Reo, and Rajendra Srivastava (1990), \"Development, Testing, and Validation of Brand Equity Under Conditions of Acquisition and Divestment,\" in Managing Brand Equity: A Conference Summary, Report No. 91-110, Eliot Maltz, ed., Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 14-15. 71

Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala Rao, & Raj Srivastava. (1991), “Model for Assessing Impact of Brand Strength on Investment Decisions: In Managing Brand Equity”. Conference Summary, Eliot Maltz, ed., Marketing Science Institute Report Number 91-110, 14-15. Muller & C.C, ‘Endorsed Branding: Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,’ June 1998, Vol. 39, pp. 90-6. Muller, C.C, Woods & R.H, “an Expected Restaurant Typology” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly,’ 1994, Vol 35, No. 3, pp. 27-37. Murphy & J, “Assessing the Value of Brands: Long Range Planning” 1990, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 23-9. Morgan R.P (2000) “A Customer-Oriented Framework of Brand Equity and Loyalty” International Journal of Market Research, 42(3) 65-120. Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: A global perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(4), 275–290 Odin, y, Odin, n, and Valetta- Florence, p (2001) “Conceptual and Operational aspect of brand equity” An n empirical investigation, Journal of business research, vol53, No.2 PP.75-84. Oliver, R.L., (1999) “whence consumer loyalty” Journal of marketing, Vol 63, pp33-34F Park, C. (2004). “Consumer values of eating-out and fast restaurant consumption in Korea”. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 87–94. Park, C. S., V. Srinivasan. (1994) “A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility\". J. Marketing Res. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. L. & Berry. (1985) “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications: For Future Research”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. L. & Berry, ‘Servqual: “A Multiple- item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”. Journal of Retailing, 1988, 64, pp. 12-40. Pitta, Dennis A. & Lea Prevel Katsanis. (1995) Understanding Brand Equity for Successful Brand Extensions” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4, 51-64. Prasad, k., and Dev, C.S (2000) Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing performance.coenell hotel and restaurant administration quartely.41 (3), 22-31. 72

Rossiter, RJ, Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and promotion management. McGraw-Hill, New York, n.y. Ryan, Bernard (1991), It Works! How Investment Spending in Advertising Pays Off, New York: American Association of Advertising Agencies. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., A., & Thornhill. (2003) “Research Methods for Business Student” (3rd ed.), England Prentice Hall. Schmitt, B.H (1999) experiential marketing. New York Smith & J.W. (1991) “Thinking about Brand Equity and the Analysis of Customer Transactions” In Maltz, E. (eds), Managing Brand Equity,’ A Conference Summary, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, ReportNo.91-110, pp. 17-18. Swait, Joffre, Tulin Erdem, Jordan Louviere & Chris Dubelaar. “The Equalization Price: A Measure of Consumer- Perceived Brand Equity” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1993, 10, pp.23-45 Simon, Carol J. and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), \"The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach,\" Marketing Science, 12 (winter), 28-52. Shocker, A. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Ruekert, R. W. (1994).Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 149–158 Smith, J. Walker (1991), \"Thinking About Brand Equity and the Analysis of Customer Transactions,\" in Managing Brand Equity: A Conference Summary, Report No. 91-110, Eliot Maltz, ed., Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 17-18. Saunder, M Lewis, P and Thornhill, A (2003) “Research Methods for Business Student” (3rd Ed.) England Prentice Hall. Söderlund, M (2001) Den Lojala Kunden. MALMÖ: LIBER EKONOMI Sӧderlund, M (2000) I huvudet pä Kunde. MALMÖ: LIBER EKONOMI Syzmanski, D. M and D.H Henard (2001), “customer satisfaction; a Meta analysis of the empirical evidence”. Journal of the academy of marketing science 29(1):16-35 Taylor, S.A., Baker & T.L, ‘An Assessment of the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer satisfaction in the formation of Consumers´ Purchase Intentions,’ Journal of Retailing, 1994, Vol. 70, pp. 163-178. Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995) Brand name strategies in the services sector, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), pp.42–50. Uggla H., (2001) “organization av varumänke. Malmo, liber economi” 73

Washburn, J.H., R.E. Plank., 2002. Measuring Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a Consumer based Brand Equity Scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10 (1), 46-62. Williams, A. (2002) Understanding the Hospitality Consumer, Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann Woo Gon Kim and Hong-Bumm Kim (2004) “Measuring customers-based Restaurant brand equity” Cornell hospitality quarterly; 45; 115.sage publications. Yin, R.K. (1994), Case study research: design and methods, sage publications, Thousands Oak, 2nd edition Yoo.B, Donthum.N. (2001) “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Customers- Based Equity Scale” Journal of Business Research, 52(1) 1-14.Publications, 1994. Yuri Ijiri. (1991) “Momentum Accounting for Brand Equity: In Managing Brand Equity”. Conference Summary, Eliot Maltz, ed., Marketing Science Report, Number 91- 110, 12-13 Zeithamal V.A (2000) “service quality, profitability and economic worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn” .journal of the academy of marketing science 28(1): 67-85. Zinkmund, W (2000) “Business Research Methods” (6th edition) Orlando: The Dryden Press INTERNET SOURCE http://www.davedolak.com/articles/dolak4.htm http://www.ipsos-ideas.com/article.cfm?id=2159. http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/invest/pub/annual_rpt_archives/2006_Annual_Report.ht ml. http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/invest/pub/annual_rpt_archives/2006_Annual_Report.ht ml. http://www.max.se/en/max.aspx?page=history. http://www.bizcommunity.com/PressOffice/PressRelease.aspx?i=358&ai=7084 http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/160/25825.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brand-preference.html http://www.davedolak.com/articles/dolak4.htm 74

APPENDIX 1: COVER LETTER Dear respondent, We are student of the school of management, Blekinge institute of technology karlskrona writing our master thesis on the topic: THE EFFECT OF CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY ON CONSUMER PURCHASE INTENSION IN FAST FOOD INDUSTRY. Attach to this, is a copy of our questionnaire we have designed to get your responses on issues related to our topic. We will appreciate it if you spend a few minute completing this questionnaire. Your response will enable us make a proper analysis of our research topic. We kindly ask you to complete this questionnaire honestly Thanks for your assistance as we await your response. Beast regards UKPEBOR PRISCILLIA IPOGAH BIBIANA 75

APPENDIX 11: QUESTIONAIRES NOTE: to select your option, tick on the inserted box. 1). Sex: Female Male 2). Please tick your age range • Less than 20 years • Between 20 and 25 years • Between 26 and 30 years • 30 and above 3). what is your nationality? • Swedish • Others 4) BRAND AWARENESS A) Write down the name of one fast food restaurant in Sweden that comes first to your mind. B) Which of these three restaurants are you most familiar with? MACDONALD KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN BURGER KING Using the numbers from the following scale (1 to 7), evaluates each characteristic of the two brands in question 4-7 76

5) MCDONALD Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 67 I regularly visit this restaurant I intend to use this restaurant again I usually use this restaurant as my first choice I am satisfied with the visit to this restaurant I would recommend this restaurant to others I will not switch to another restaurant the next time It maintains appropriate sound level Its brand is familiar to me The price is reasonable Service is quick It is conveniently located It taste good compare with price It has a neat environment It has a long history The food quality of the restaurant is good Serving ordered food accurately Availability of complimentary (sauce, napkins etc) The drive sound system was clear Well dressed neat and trained staffs Customer service was good The restaurant has convenient opening hours 77

6) KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 67 It maintain appropriate sound level Its brand is familiar to me The price is reasonable Service is quick It is conveniently located It taste good compare with price It has a neat environment It has a long history I regularly visit this restaurant I intend to use this restaurant again I usually use this restaurant as my first choice I am satisfied with the visit to this restaurant I would recommend this restaurant to others I will not switch to another restaurant the next time The food quality of the restaurant is good Serving ordered food accurately Availability of complimentary (sauce, napkins etc) The drive sound system was clear Well dressed neat and trained staffs Customer service was good The restaurant has convenient opening hours 78

APPENDIX 111: ANAYSIS PERCEIVED QUALITY The food quality of the restaurant is good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 9 32 23 64 6.22 Total 45 192 161 398 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 23 41 64 CHICKEN Total 138 287 425 6.64 Serving ordered food accurately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 1 12 51 64 6.78 Total 5 72 357 434 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 7 19 40 64 CHICKEN Total 30 108 280 418 6.53 Availability of complimentary (sauce, napkins etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 4 60 64 6.94 Total 24 420 444 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 3 32 29 64 CHICKEN Total 15 192 203 410 6.41 79

The drive sound system Was clear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 9 26 29 64 6.31 Total 45 156 203 404 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 5 38 21 64 CHICKEN Total 25 228 147 400 6.25 Well dressed ,neat 12345 6 7 Total Mean And trained staffs 32 29 64 No of Respondent 3 McDonald Total 15 192 203 410 6.41 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 40 24 64 CHICKEN Total 240 168 408 6.38 Customer service was good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 9 32 23 64 6.22 Total 45 192 161 398 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 10 24 30 64 CHICKEN Total 50 144 210 404 6.31 80

The restaurant have convenient Opening hours 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 24 40 64 6.63 Total 144 280 424 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 2 34 28 64 CHICKEN Total 10 204 196 410 6.41 BRAND IMAGE It maintains appropriate Sound level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 31 26 5 2 64 4.66 Total 124 130 30 14 298 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 21 43 64 CHICKEN Total 126 301 427 6.67 Its brand is familiar 12345 6 7 Total Mean To me No of Respondent 4 60 64 McDonald Total 24 420 444 6.94 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 34 30 64 CHICKEN Total 204 210 414 6.47 81

The price is reasonable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean No of Respondent 9 36 19 64 McDonald Total 45 216 133 394 6.16 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 23 22 19 64 CHICKEN Total 115 132 133 380 5.94 Service is quick 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean No of Respondent 29 26 9 64 McDonald Total 145 156 63 364 5.69 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 24 40 64 CHICKEN Total 144 280 424 6.63 It is conveniently located McDonald 12345 6 7 Total Mean No of Respondent 14 50 64 Total 84 350 434 6.78 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 40 24 64 CHICKEN Total 160 120 280 4.38 82

It taste good compare With price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 5 17 23 19 64 5.88 Total 20 85 138 133 376 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 3 32 29 64 CHICKEN Total 15 192 203 410 6.41 It has a neat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean environment No of Respondent 1 2 31 30 64 McDonald Total 4 10 186 210 410 6.41 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 30 34 64 CHICKEN Total 180 238 418 6.53 It has a long 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean history No of Respondent 1 12 51 64 McDonald Total 5 72 357 434 6.78 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 23 32 9 64 CHICKEN Total 115 192 63 370 5.78 83

BRAND LOYALTY I regularly visit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean this restaurant No of Respondent 22 25 17 64 McDonald Total 110 150 119 379 5.92 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 4 28 30 2 64 CHICKEN Total 16 140 180 14 350 5.47 I intend to use This 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean restaurant again No of Respondent 28 21 15 64 McDonald Total 140 126 105 371 5.80 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 60 4 64 CHICKEN Total 300 24 324 5.06 I usually use this Restaurant as my first choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean No of Respondent 44 16 4 64 McDonald Total 220 96 28 344 5.39 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 5 15 23 21 64 CHICKEN Total 20 75 138 147 380 5.94 84

I am satisfied with my visit To this restaurant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean No of Respondent 30 14 20 64 McDonald Total 150 84 140 374 5.84 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 40 4 10 10 64 CHICKEN Total 160 20 60 70 310 4.84 I would recommend this restaurant to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 4 17 22 21 64 5.94 Total 16 85 132 147 380 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 6 10 32 16 64 CHICKEN Total 24 50 192 112 378 5.91 I will not switch to another Restaurant the next time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean McDonald No of Respondent 10 20 14 20 64 5.69 Total 40 100 84 140 364 KENTUCKY FRIED No of Respondent 30 20 10 4 64 CHICKEN Total 120 100 60 28 308 4.81 85