Figure 1.
Path analysis model
Source: own processing
Table 1.
Convergent validity
| Variable | Factor loading | t-statistics | p-value* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand resources (BR) (α=0.752, CR=0.706, AVE=0.435) | |||
| Financial | 0.576 | 7.470 | 0.000 |
| Human resources | 0.749 | 11.415 | 0.000 |
| Time | 0.654 | 8.423 | 0.000 |
| Responsiveness to publicity | 0.655 | 9.573 | 0.000 |
| Inspired/uninspired marketing | 0.715 | 11.816 | 0.000 |
| Lack of branding strategy | 0.508 | 5.094 | 0.000 |
| Brand characteristics (BC) (α=0.982, CR=0.988, AVE=0.902) | |||
| Price of the brand | 0.921 | 32.394 | 0.000 |
| Guarantee of the brand | 0.959 | 46.192 | 0.000 |
| Availability of the brand | 0.985 | 66.323 | 0.000 |
| Innovativeness of the brand | 0.983 | 54.525 | 0.000 |
| Reliability of the brand | 0.984 | 69.883 | 0.000 |
| Communication of a brand | 0.940 | 35.722 | 0.000 |
| Image of the brand | 0.989 | 70.267 | 0.000 |
| Attitude towards the brand | 0.977 | 52.420 | 0.000 |
| Performance of the brand | 0.956 | 43.459 | 0.000 |
| Brand development (BD) (α=0.85, CR=0.888, AVE=0.531) | |||
| Brand awareness | 0.743 | 21.413 | 0.000 |
| Quality of products/services | 0.711 | 15.456 | 0.000 |
| Repeat purchases | 0.715 | 16.207 | 0.000 |
| Brand image development | 0.815 | 24.252 | 0.000 |
| Achievement of competitive advantage over competitors | 0.719 | 15.597 | 0.000 |
| Evaluation of overall marketing strategy | 0.727 | 16.723 | 0.000 |
| Building of a solid reputation | 0.682 | 14.484 | 0.000 |
| Brand orientation (BO) (α=0.653, CR=0.725, AVE=0.686) | |||
| Daily marketing operations to long-term branding strategy | 0.751 | 5.145 | 0.000 |
| Increasing awareness of product/service to reinforce the distinctiveness of the product or service | 0.901 | 7.486 | 0.000 |
| Perceived advantage (PA) (α=0.863, CR=0.843, AVE=0.414) | |||
| It adds value that customers are prepared to pay for | 0.600 | 8.701 | 0.000 |
| It inspires customer loyalty | 0.766 | 19.800 | 0.000 |
| It leads to positive word of mouth | 0.674 | 16.121 | 0.000 |
| The brand owner can charge higher prices | 0.357 | 4.690 | 0.000 |
| Better access to distribution | 0.631 | 10.379 | 0.000 |
| The customer will remember the product/service | 0.678 | 13.333 | 0.000 |
| Less risk for the customer | 0.548 | 7.779 | 0.000 |
| The brand provides an image of quality | 0.772 | 15.461 | 0.000 |
| The brand provides an image of reliability | 0.697 | 15.378 | 0.000 |
| Brand perception (OBP) (α=0.846, CR=0.873, AVE=0.441) | |||
| It is important to brand a business | 0.487 | 8.140 | 0.000 |
| Strong brands exert a halo effect | 0.485 | 8.032 | 0.000 |
| Strong brands represent different values, traits and characteristics | 0.604 | 11.710 | 0.000 |
| A strong brand serves as a platform for expansion | 0.689 | 13.611 | 0.000 |
| An existing retail brand strengthens brand awareness and differentiation from the competition | 0.617 | 12.806 | 0.000 |
| Branding unlocks profitability | 0.457 | 5.077 | 0.000 |
| Brands prompt consumer selection | 0.633 | 10.854 | 0.000 |
| Brands lead to name awareness | 0.693 | 13.448 | 0.000 |
| Branding signals the building of customer loyalty | 0.686 | 13.142 | 0.000 |
| Branding signals trust | 0.704 | 16.477 | 0.000 |
Table 2.
Fornell–Larcker criterion
| ID | Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brand resources | 0.660 | |||||
| 2 | Brand characteristics | -0.218 | 0.950 | ||||
| 3 | Brand development | 0.279 | 0.124 | 0.729 | |||
| 4 | Brand orientation | 0.118 | 0.102 | 0.342 | 0.828 | ||
| 5 | Brand perception | 0.147 | 0.007 | 0.575 | 0.185 | 0.643 | |
| 6 | Perceived advantage | 0.223 | 0.020 | 0.442 | 0.134 | 0.572 | 0.664 |
Table 3.
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio
| ID | Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brand resources | ||||||
| 2 | Brand characteristics | 0.244 | |||||
| 3 | Brand development | 0.362 | 0.129 | ||||
| 4 | Brand orientation | 0.180 | 0.156 | 0.427 | |||
| 5 | Brand perception | 0.226 | 0.089 | 0.655 | 0.206 | ||
| 6 | Perceived advantage | 0.297 | 0.133 | 0.547 | 0.240 | 0.695 |
Table 4.
Path coefficients
| H | Path | Coefficient | t-statistic | p-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | Brand resources → Brand characteristics | -0.226 | 3.177 | 0.002** | Accepted |
| H1b | Brand resources → Brand development | 0.223 | 3.220 | 0.001** | Accepted |
| H1c | Brand resources → Brand orientation | 0.048 | 0.508 | 0.612 | Rejected |
| H1d | Brand resources → Brand perception | 0.019 | 0.286 | 0.775 | Rejected |
| H1e | Brand resources → Perceived advantage | 0.237 | 3.450 | 0.001* | Accepted |
| H2a | Brand characteristics → Brand development | 0.163 | 2.850 | 0.005* | Accepted |
| H2b | Brand characteristics → Brand orientation | 0.071 | 0.848 | 0.397 | Rejected |
| H2c | Brand characteristics → Brand perception | 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.996 | Rejected |
| H2d | Brand characteristics → Perceived advantage | 0.069 | 1.145 | 0.253 | Rejected |
| H3 | Brand development → Brand orientation | 0.329 | 2.391 | 0.017 | Accepted |
| H4a | Brand perception → Brand development | 0.500 | 7.439 | *** | Accepted |
| H4b | Brand perception → Brand orientation | 0.002 | 0.020 | 0.984 | Rejected |
| H5a | Perceived advantage → Brand development | 0.122 | 1.732 | 0.084 | Rejected |
| H5b | Perceived advantage → Brand orientation | -0.025 | 0.228 | 0.820 | Rejected |
| H5c | Perceived advantage → Brand perception | 0.555 | 6.561 | *** | Accepted |
| Adjusted R-squared | Statistic | t-statistic | p-value | ||
| Brand characteristics | 0.044 | 1.416 | 0.157 | ||
| Brand development | 0.397 | 6.529 | 0.000 | ||
| Brand orientation | 0.106 | 1.936 | 0.053 | ||
| Brand perception | 0.320 | 3.825 | 0.000 | ||
| Perceived advantage | 0.048 | 1.404 | 0.161 |
Figure 2.
Hypotheses model with path estimates
Source: own processing