The Impact of Brand Equity on Customer Acquisition, Retention, and

The Impact of Brand Equity on Customer Acquisition,

Retention, and Profit Margin

Florian Stahl*

Mark Heitmann**

Donald R. Lehmann***

Scott A. Neslin****

March 10, 2011

This is a working paper. Please do not cite without the authors explicit permission.

* Florian Stahl is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 14,

8032 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected].

** Mark Heitmann is Professor of Marketing at the Christian-Albrechts-University at Kiel,

Westring 425, 24118 Kiel, Germany. E-mail: heitm[email protected]).

** Donald R. Lehmann is the George E. Warren Professor of Business at the Columbia Graduate

School of Business, 3022 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

*** Scott A. Neslin is the Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing at the Amos Tuck School

of Business Administration, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. E-mail:

[email protected]

We thank Peter Leeflang, Jacob Goldenberg, Gilles Laurent, Natalie Mizik, Marc Fischer and the

participants in the Tuck Marketing Seminar Series for their valuable comments and helpful

suggestions.

Reprinted by permission of the Marketing Science Institute.

The Impact of Brand Equity on Customer Acquisition,

Retention, and Profit Margin

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an empirical examination of the relationship between brand equity

and customer acquisition, retention, and profit margin, the key components of customer lifetime

value (CLV), as well as the role of marketing in this relationship. We examine a unique database

from the U.S. automobile market, comprised of 10 years of survey-based brand equity measures

as well as acquisition rates, retention rates, and customer profitability. We hypothesize and find

that brand equity is significantly associated with the components of CLV in expected and

meaningful ways. For example, customer knowledge or familiarity with the brand is positively

related to all three components of CLV. More surprisingly, however differentiation is a double-

edged sword; while it is associated with higher customer profitability, it is also associated with

lower acquisition and retention rates, suggesting that highly differentiated brands address targeted

segments whose members exhibit changing preferences. We also find that marketing, especially

advertising and market presence, exert both direct and indirect impacts on CLV through brand

equity. Simulations show that changes in marketing, or exogenous changes in brand equity, can

exert important impacts on CLV. Overall, the findings suggest the “soft” and “hard” sides of

marketing need to be managed in a coordinated fashion. We discuss these and other implications

for researchers and practitioners.

-1-

INTRODUCTION

The development and application of marketing metrics has been both a major focus of

academic work (e.g., Srivastava et al. 1998; Lehmann and Reibstein 2006; Srinivasan and

Hanssens 2009) and a key issue for practitioners, having been a top priority of the Marketing

Science Institute for the last decade. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of two

key marketing assets: brand equity and customer lifetime value (CLV). This paper attempts to

demonstrate how these two constructs are related; more precisely, how brand equity drives the

key components of CLV: acquisition, retention, and profit margin.

Leone et al. (2006) emphasize that while many different methods have been proposed for

measuring brand equity, they share the premise that “The power of a brand lies in the minds of

consumers.“ (p. 126). Numerous commercial measures exist including Milward-Brown’s

BrandZ, Research International’s Equity Engine, IPSOS’s Equity*Builder and Young and

Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator (BAV), the measure we use in this paper.

While brand equity is rooted in the hearts and minds of consumers, CLV is manifested in

the dollar value of customer purchases. CLV is concerned with retention rates, acquisition rates,

profit margins, and ultimately, the net present value of the long-term profit contribution of the

customer (Farris et al. 2006). CLV is a financial measure that has immediate application as a

metric for assessing customer prospecting, as an objective to be managed, and as a method for

valuing the firm (Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin 2008; Gupta, Lehmann, and Stuart 2004).

As pointed out by Leone et al. (2006), Peppers and Rogers (2004, p. 301), and Rust,

Zeithaml, and Lemon (2000, p. 55), brand equity is logically a precursor of CLV. If brand

managers win the hearts and minds of the customer, customer managers have an easier time

retaining and acquiring customers. This perspective is supported by the classic theory of

-2-

reasoned action (Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1995, pp. 387-389), which posits that consumer

attitudes are a precursor to consumer actions. Quantifying this link between brand equity and

CLV provides several benefits, including: (1) providing a broader base for valuing the

“qualitative“ brand manager’s plans for advertising and positioning the brand, and (2) adding

diagnostic value to the dollar values that comprise CLV. Keller and Lehmann (2006) identify the

link between brand equity and CLV as a key area for future research.

While the brand equity to CLV link is crucial, it does not operate in a vacuum. Marketing

actions – advertising, pricing, promotions, product innovations, market presence – drive both

constructs. Researchers including Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin (2003) and Srinivasan, Park

and Chang (2005) show how marketing actions are associated with brand equity. Others such as

Venkatesan and Kumar (2004) show how marketing actions are associated with CLV (see also

the review by Blattberg, Malthouse, and Neslin 2009).

In summary, previous work has suggested and in some cases measured pair-wise

relationships between marketing, brand equity, and CLV. However, work is needed that unifies

these constructs. One important step in this direction is the work of Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml

(2004). They measure “return on marketing” by showing specific examples of the relationship

between marketing and customer product ratings, and how these ratings determine CLV. We

build on their work by (1) allowing marketing to influence CLV not only through brand equity

but directly as well, (2) examining the impact of brand equity on profit margins in addition to the

acquisition and retention components of CLV, and (3) using a widely used measure of brand

equity (the Brand Asset Evaluator) and examining a particular industry over an extended period

of time – one decade. Accordingly, the purposes of our paper are to:

-3-

• Determine the impact of brand equity on the components of CLV – customer

acquisition, customer retention and profit margin;

• Measure the impact of marketing on brand equity and the components of CLV;

• Determine whether brand equity impacts the components of CLV, even after

accounting for the impact of marketing activity;

• Demonstrate an easy-to-implement method for quantifying these relationships with

the type of data that is available in real-world applications.

In summary, our goal is to quantify the strategic relationship between brand management

(brand equity) and customer management (the components of CLV), and to demonstrate the role

that marketing activities play in this relationship.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Equity

Brand equity can be assessed at the customer mind-set (e.g. Aaker 1996, Keller 2008),

product-market (e.g., Park and Srinivisan 1994), or financial market level (e.g., Mahajan, Rao,

and Srivastava 1994). These approaches have different strengths and weaknesses (Ailawadi,

Lehmann, and Neslin 2003). While financial market measures quantify current and future brand

potential, they often rely on subjective judgements or volatile measures to estimate future value

(Simon and Sullivan 1993). Product-market measures are more closely related to marketing

activity but don’t capture future potential (e.g., Kamakura and Russel 1993; Swait et al. 1993).

More importantly, both approaches suffer from their limited diagnostic value for improving

brand value. Customer mind-set metrics, on the other hand, identify brand strengths and

weaknesses (Keller 1993). While this provides insights for strengthening brand equity, it

-4-

provides little information about brand performance in terms of market share or profitability. By

linking brand equity to the components of CLV we bridge this gap.

We focus on customer-based brand equity defined as ”the differential effect of brand

knowledge or customer response to the marketing of the brand”. It “occurs when the customer is

familiar with the band and holds some favourable strong, and unique associations in memory”.

(Keller, 1993, P.2). Not surprisingly, there are several mind-set measures of brand equity.

Commercial measures such as Young & Roubicam's (Y&R) Brand Asset Valuator (BAV),

Milward Brown's BrandZ or Research International's Equity Engine measure four to five major

facets of brand perceptions. Similarly, academic researchers have proposed five to six key

aspects that capture brand image beyond an overall attitude/halo component (Keller and

Lehmann 2003; Lehmann, Keller and Farley 2008). Of the commercial measures, BAV is

probably the best known and is “the world’s largest database of consumer-derived information

on brands (Keller, 2008, P. 393) as well as the first brand equity model discussed by Kotler and

Keller (2009, P. 243). It also served as a basis for Aaker’s (1996) 10 measures of brand equity.

Y&R has measured brand associations for two decades and currently covers over 20,000 brands

in over 40 countries. Four "pillars" – Knowledge, Relevance, Differentiation, and Esteem – have

emerged from these observations as most diagnostic for metrics such as customer attraction,

price elasticity and loyalty. Knowledge appears in Keller’s definition and emerged as a key

component in Lehmann, Keller and Farley (2008), while Relevance, Esteem, and Differentiation

are the “favorable, strong, and unique” associations in Keller’s definition. This paper examines

how these four “pillars” relate to customer acquisition, retention, and profit margin.

Numerous studies have shown the link of marketing activities such as advertising to

brand equity (e.g., Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin 2003). In addition, Aaker and Jacobson

-5-

(1994, 2001) found a positive link between perceived brand quality and attitude and stock prices.

The link between brands and stock price is also demonstrated in Kerin and Sethuraman (1998),

Mizik and Jacobson (2008) and Madden, Fehle, and Fournier (2006). Scholars have also focused

on the impact of brand equity on customer loyalty and tolerance of corporate misconduct (e.g.,

Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Aaker, Fournier and Brasel 2004) as well as willingness to pay

(Swait et al. 1993). Furthermore, even simple mind-set metrics, such as brand recall, have been

shown to explain demand over and above marketing activity (Srinivsan, Vanhuele and Pauwels

2010). These findings, as well as work by Leone et al. (2006), Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemon

(2000), and Peppers and Rogers (2004), provide empirical support for the notion that brand

equity should link to hard measures of customer behavior such as the components of CLV.

Customer Lifetime Value

Farris et al. (2006, p. 143) define CLV as “The present value of the future cash flows

attributed to the customer relationship.” As Farris et al. (2006) note, CLV is essentially the Net

Present Value calculation used for capital budgeting in corporate finance. However, the unit of

analysis for CLV is the customer, not the “project“.

CLV is used as a metric for deciding whether a group of customers is worth acquiring

(Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin 2008), as a means to value the firm (Gupta, Lehmann, and Stuart

2004), and as an objective to be managed dynamically (e.g., Kahn, Lewis, and Singh 2009;

Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin 2008, Chapter 28). A substantial portion of this research has focused

on assessing the financial value of customers (Hogan et al. 2002; Hogan, Lemon, and Libai

2003) and on its determinants such as marketing actions (Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004;

Venkatesan and Kumar 2004).

-6-

There are two main methods of calculating CLV (Dwyer 1989; Berger and Nasr 1998;

Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin 2008): (1) the simple retention model, and (2) the Markov migration

model. The simple retention model assumes that the customer is acquired, retained with a certain

probability each year, and at some point ceases to be a customer. Once the customer “churns”,

the possibility of the customer returning to the company is not considered except as a “new”

acquisition. The migration model explicitly addresses this possibility. A customer may

temporarily defect, that is, skip purchasing for a period or two and then resume purchasing. For

example, a McDonalds customer may visit the establishment in week 1, skip weeks 2 and 3, and

return in week 4. The same can occur for a durable product, e.g., a Ford owner may switch to a

Toyota, but then, after a few years, come back and buy a Ford. Whereas the retention model is

driven by retention rates and profit margin, the migration model is governed by retention rates,

profit margin, and (re)acquisition rates. The data we have from the automobile industry include

acquisition as well as retention measures. This allows us to exploit the strengths of the Markov

migration model so we compute CLV using this approach.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

Conceptual

Framework

The literature review suggests the simple framework depicted in Figure 1. The

framework is essentially a value chain similar to those discussed by Keller and Lehmann (2003),

Gupta and Lehmann (2005), and Reibstein and Lehmann (2006). It proposes that marketing

actions influence both brand equity and the components of CLV, and that brand equity has a

direct impact on the components of CLV even after controlling for marketing actions. We next

discuss the hypotheses related to this framework.

-7-

--- Figure 1 ---

Hypotheses

As mentioned earlier, the behavioral concept at work here is the theory of reasoned

action, which posits a trail from customer cognitions (captured by brand equity) to affect, to

intentions, to behavior (captured by CLV components). This process exists over and above

marketing activities that might be aimed directly at increasing CLV. Therefore, our first

hypothesis is:

H1: Brand equity impacts CLV, even after controlling for the direct effect of

marketing activities.

H1 is fundamental but nontrivial to demonstrate. It is quite possible that the attitude to

behavior link is lost amid the “noise” created by marketing efforts aimed directly at customer

acquisition, customer retention, and customer profit margin. Alternatively, the effect of

marketing on CLV may simply be direct, rather than mediated by brand equity.

A second premise of Figure 1 is that marketing activities can be used to increase both

brand equity and CLV. Here these “activities” are operationalized as the elements of the

marketing mix (i.e. advertising, product innovation, price, price promotion, and distribution).

Previous work has not examined the impact of the elements of the marketing mix on the

components of brand equity and CLV in the same setting. While one may consider these only as

control variables, one role of this paper is to assess their effects in an integrated context. We

therefore state the following (obvious) hypotheses:

H2A: Marketing activities impact brand equity.

H2B: Marketing activities directly impact customer acquisition, customer

retention, and customer profit margin.

-8-

In addition, we have a number of specific hypotheses about which aspects of brand equity

impact the three components of CLV. Here we focus on the four components of brand equity in

the current BAV model:

• Knowledge: The extent to which customers are familiar with the brand.

• Relevance: The extent to which customers find the brand to be relevant to their needs.

• Esteem: The regard customers have for the brand’s quality, leadership, and reliability.

• Differentiation: The extent to which the brand is seen as different, unique, or distinct.

How each of these is hypothesized to relate to the components of CLV – acquisition, retention,

and profit – is summarized in Table 1.

Knowledge: Knowledge/familiarity with a brand is the first element in hierarchy of

effects models such as Howard and Sheth (1969). Knowledge plays an important role in

mitigating perceived risk (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Customers should be more apt to switch

to a brand if they are familiar with it because there is less risk that the product will not meet their

needs. Similarly, well known brands do not have to pay customers a “risk premium” in the form

of lower prices. Therefore, knowledge (familiarity) with a brand should have a positive effect on

both acquisition and profit margin. In terms of retention, current customers have adapted to a

product and hence learned to value its attributes (Carpenter and Nakomoto 1989). They also will

be more confident in their judgment of the product, leading to it being more appealing when

considering the mean and variance of alternatives in future choice decisions.

--- Table 1 ---

Relevance: Consistent with most mind-set models of brand equity, BAV includes a

measure of need fulfillment, captured by relevance. Products can provide utility through

functional, experiential or symbolic benefits (see Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986). While the

-9-

importance of these benefits differs across individual consumers and change over time (Keller

1993), brands that fulfill the core needs of customers are likely to be considered for purchase

(Punj and Brookes 2002) and consequently produce higher acquisition and retention rates as well

as increased willingness to pay and hence higher margins. One might argue that relevance is a

low bar, as companies in a given industry tend to converge and address similar needs (D'Aveni

1995). This suggests the effect of relevance may be weak. However, addressing customer needs

is basic to the marketing concept (Kotler and Keller 2009, p. 19). We therefore advance the

following hypothesis:

Esteem: Going a step beyond relevance, higher esteem means that the quality and

reliability of the brand are judged favorably. Evaluative judgments such as esteem are seldom

formed with regard to benefits of little subjective importance (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). Put

differently, brand respect and deference will be related to favorable appraisals of important

attributes (see MacKenzie 1986). Hence, brands, which satisfy important consumption goals,

should be able to achieve higher acquisition and retention rates and command price premiums.

Taken together, this discussion suggests the following (fairly obvious) hypothesis:

H3: Brands with higher knowledge, relevance and esteem have higher

customer acquisition and retention rates, and command larger profit

margins.

Differentiation: Differentiation has long been the mantra of marketing, and hence one

might expect it to also be positively associated with all the components of CLV (e.g., Day and

Wensley 1988). Economic theory dictates that less differentiated products face more

competition, which ultimately drives down prices. Thus, more differentiated products should

have higher margins. However, distinctiveness, a key component of differentiation, has no

-10-

positive customer benefit per se. Psychologists find that individuals tend to rate distinct stimuli

lower because they are harder to process and evaluate (Winkielman et al. 2006). The limited

sales of failures such as the Pontiac Aztec and the Ford Edsel (and of successes such as Porsche

911) suggest highly distinctive cars appeal to relatively small segments. Recent field studies of

the German automobile market confirm this by showing that aesthetically distinct vehicles turn

over slower than less distinct automobiles (Landwehr, Labroo and Herrmann 2009). In addition,

in mature markets differentiated brands tend to be highly targeted, which limits their customer

base and leads to lower acquisition rates.

Differentiated brands also may be less able to hold onto their customers because of

variety seeking or changes in customer preference due to changes in family status, social

environment and cultural norms. Furthermore, distinct products have been linked to self image

portrayal, need for uniqueness and variety seeking (Ratner and Kahn 2002, Levav and Ariely

2000). A Porsche, for example, is clearly a very differentiated and unique sports car. However, it

addresses transient needs and its customers may make different choices on their next purchase

after they have had their sports car “fix” or their circumstances change, e.g., they begin raising a

family. We therefore hypothesize differentiation is a double-edged sword, positively associated

with profit margins but negatively with customer acquisition and retention:

H4: Brands with higher differentiation will be associated with lower

acquisition and retention rates, but higher profit margins.

In addition to these main effects, we also examine interactions among the BAV

components

-11-

DATA

To link customer based brand equity to the components of CLV in a practical yet long-

term, strategic way, we focus on a single, major industry – the U.S. automotive industry.

Specifically, we focus on data for 39 major brands between 1999 and 2008 (comprising more

than 97% of all automobile sales in the US market). The automotive industry is of great

economic importance. Cars are high involvement products in terms of interest, symbolic value,

hedonic value and risk (Lapersonne, Laurent, and Le Goff 1995). Thus, one would expect

potential buyers to carefully collect and analyze product information, so the long-run dynamics

of acquisition and retention become managerially more meaningful (Srinivasan and Ratchford

1991). Furthermore, switching behavior is easily observed since most customers trade in used

cars when purchasing a new one. We compiled data on brand equity, customer acquisition,

retention, and profit margin, and marketing variables from several sources, as detailed below.

Customer-Based Brand Equity

Of the several models that have been developed to measure brand equity at the customer

mind set level, Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) is among the most visible

(Mizik and Jacobson 2008). BAV is an extensive research program on global branding and has

been called one of the most ambitious efforts to measure brand equity across products (Keller

2008; Aaker 1996). In the U.S. Young & Rubicam collects annual data from a sample of more

than 6,000 designed to the U.S. population over 18 years of age (Agres and Dubitsky 1996).

Table 2 contains the perceptual metrics used to derive the components that comprise BAV:

“differentiation,” “relevance,” “esteem,” and “knowledge”. Items belonging to each component

-12-

were averaged to calculate a formative index. We rescaled items that were on different scales to a

1 to 100 scale to make them comparable.

--- Table 2 ---

One strength of BAV is its widespread use both in the business world and by academic

researchers (Aaker 2004, Chapter 10), who related it to stock price movements and firm

valuation (e.g., Mizik and Jacobson 2008). Furthermore, BAV is one of the very few measures

available over a ten-year period for all the relevant brands of a major industry. One weakness of

the data is that the number of “sub-scales” differs from one to seven across the pillars, and some

sub-scales use simple yes-no responses when interval scales might have been more powerful.

More broadly, our specific results are limited to the dimensions of BAV as well as the product

category studied, automobiles in the U.S. The results therefore should be taken strictly as

“hypotheses” of what would happen in other situations.

Customer Acquisition and Customer Retention

The customer purchase data used in our study to measure acquisition and retention were

provided by the Power Information Network (PIN) and consist of trade-in and purchase data on

39 different automobile brands in the U.S. between 1999 and 2008. These data cover about 40%

of transactions and are considered representative for the U.S. and have been successfully applied

in previous research on automotive choice (Bucklin, Siddarth and Risso 2008; Jie, Lili and

Schroeder 2009).

For example, esteem consists of personal regard, leadership, high quality, and reliability. While regard is measured

on a seven-point scale, the others are measured using yes-no responses. We rescale regard to a scale from 1 to 100

and derive the brand equity component esteem by averaging all four items. We refrain from using z-scores to

calculate composite measures (see Mizik and Jacobson 2008) because we wanted to be able to quantify the impact

of changes in brand equity on CLV using simulation (see below).

-13-

The migration CLV model requires switching probabilities conditional on which brand

customers previously purchased, i.e., the percentage of customers who bought the focal brand in

period t among customers who owned the brand in t-1 and made a purchase in t (retention) and

the percentage of customers who bought the focal brand in period t among those who owned

another brand in t-1 and made a purchase in period t (acquisition). This differs from the

unconditional probabilities, i.e., the number of customers repurchasing the focal brand in t as a

percentage of all customers purchasing in t (retention) and the number of customers switching to

the focal brand in t as a percentage of all customers purchasing in t (acquisition). Table 3

illustrates the calculation of unconditional and conditional acquisition and retention probabilities.

Unconditional probabilities sum to one and we incorporate this in our analysis to ensure logical

consistency of our predictions. We convert predictions of the unconditional probabilities to

conditional probabilities, which are used in the migration CLV model.

--- Table 3 ---

Customer (Gross) Profit Margin

The customer (gross) profit margin of a sold car is the difference between a brand’s

average wholesale price and its variable production costs, i.e. its costs of goods sold (COGS).

Power Information Network (PIN) provided data on each brand’s price per sold car, while COGS

data are derived from annual reports. Our analysis excludes fixed costs such as advertising and

R&D and represents the marginal contribution of a sale/customer. The merits of using only

variable costs in CLV calculations are discussed by Blattberg, Kim and Neslin (2008, pp. 149-

151). Similarly, Berger and Nasr (1998) do not consider fixed costs in their seminal paper on

calculating CLV, a perspective shared by Mulhern (1999).

-14-

Marketing Activities

We use marketing mix variables that have been shown to influence customer acquisition

and retention (Pauwels et al. 2004; Slotegraaf and Pauwels 2008; Ataman, Van Heerde, and

Mela 2009; Ailawadi, Lehmann and Neslin 2003). We include each brand’s yearly ad spending

(advertising) in the U.S. (provided by TNS Media), the number of dealers in the U.S. (provided

by Automotive News), product range measured as the number of distinct models offered, the

number of new model launches introduced in a year (both provided by Wards Automobile), and

the average customer incentives (price promotions) during the year (provided by Automotive

News). Because of the high correlation between number of dealers (distribution) and product

range/brand breath (0.59)

, we combine these into a variable we called “market presence,” i.e.,

the ubiquity of the brand in the market. Since these measures are on different scales, we rescale

them to range between one and ten. Market presence is calculated as a formative index by

averaging the rescaled components.

We adjust ad spending by the consumer price index (CPI), as reported by the U.S. Bureau

of Economic Analysis. The average price of a brand’s sold cars is adjusted by the CPI for gross

domestic purchases of motor vehicles using the same source of information. The baseline price

index for all prices and budgets is 1999.

The correlation between dealers and range was the highest pairwise correlation among these five different

measures of marketing actions.

-15-

ANALYSIS APPROACH

Statistical Analysis

Figure 1 suggests three equations: (1) Brand equity as a function of marketing activity,

(2) Retention and acquisition as a function of brand equity and marketing activities, and (3)

Profit as a function of brand equity and marketing activities.

Brand equity: To analyze the four brand equity measures – relevance, esteem,

differentiation, and knowledge – as a function of marketing activities, we specify four regression

equations and estimate them jointly using seemingly unrelated regression.

∑∑

+−+=−

kit

mitmkiik

kit

XXFBEBE

)()(

μδα

(1)

i 1,...,39 indexes the 39 brands, where I = 39

t 1,...,10 indexes the 10 years of data

k 1,...,4 indexes the four brand equity measures

m 1,...,5 indexes the five marketing activities defined earlier

kit

Value of brand equity component k for brand i in period t

Fixed effect for firm i on brand equity component k

Dummy coding for brand i

The impact of marketing activity m on brand equity measure k

mit

Value of marketing activity m for brand i in period t

kit

Error term for brand equity component k, brand i and period t

The key coefficients are the four sets of δ‘s representing the impact of marketing on each

brand equity component. We include brand-specific fixed effects to control for cross-sectional

variance so that changes in brand equity are likely to be due to changes in marketing activity

over time rather than stable and unique characteristics of the brand. Second, we scale all

variables relative to the mean across brands for the given time period. This provides a convenient

way to account for (possibly nonlinear) trends from year to year. The model assumes that what

matters is not, for example, the level of advertising, but rather the level of advertising relative to

competition. Measuring the variables in this way means that what we specifically examine is 1)

-16-

how deviations in marketing activities from the industry average impact the four pillars of BAV

and 2) how deviations in each pillar of BAV from the industry average impact market place

behavior as measured by acquisition and retention (which drive share) as well as margin.

Customer Acquisition and Customer Retention: As discussed in the data section, we

model unconditional acquisition and retention probabilities because these have consistency

properties (summing to one) we can exploit. Define S

irt

as the unconditional acquisition

probability (r = 1) or retention probability (r = 2) for brand i in period t. As shown in Table 3,

summing S

irt

produces:

∑∑

irt

(2)

irt

Unconditional probability of acquisition or retention (r) for brand i in period t

r 1, acquisition; 2 for retention.

We employ a differential effects multinomial attraction model (Cooper and Nakanishi

1988) to maintain the logical consistency of equation (2). We predict logically consistent

unconditional acquisition and retention probabilities, use them to derive absolute numbers

(Table 3), and then derive the conditional acquisition and retention probabilities needed for

calculating CLV. The differential effects multinomial attraction model is:

∑∑

jrt

irt

(3)

irt

Attraction of brand i to acquire/retain (r) in period t

-17-

The A

irt

’s are expressed as:

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

+−+−++=

∑∑

irt

mitmr

kitkrrriiirt

XXBEBEAFA

εδβαα

)()(exp

(4)

Fixed effect for brand i

Dummy coding for brand i

Fixed effect for acquisition and retention

Dummy coding for acquisition and retention

Effect of brand equity component k on acquisition/retention (r)

kit

Value of brand equity component k of brand i in period t

Effect of marketing activity m on acquisition/retention (r)

mit

Value of marketing activity m of brand i in period t

irt

Error term for brand i, acquisition/retention (r) and period t

Equation (4) models attraction, and hence unconditional retention and acquisition, as

functions of brand equity and marketing. The coefficients for these variables are retention or

acquisition specific, so that brand equity measure k has a different impact on retention than on

acquisition. We also include fixed effects for brand and for retention vs. acquisition.

Taking the logarithm of equation (3), substituting in equation (4), summing over I = 39

brands and over R = 2 acquisition/retention, and multiplying both sides by 1/IR yields:

∑∑

∑∑ ∑ ∑∑∑

== = ===

−

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

+−+−++=

jrt

irt

mitmr

kitkrri

irt

XXBEBE

11 1 111

)()(

εδβαα

(5)

Following Cooper and Nakanishi (1988) we subtract equation (5) from the log of equation (3) to

form a single regression equation:

We also experimented with a model using a single composite fixed effect for acquisition/retention (r) and brand i.

This model produced substantially similar effects. We decided to report the results for the specification of equation

(5) which uses fewer degrees of freedom.

-18-

2211

))((

irt

mitmrmr

kitkrkrri

irt

BEBE

εδαδα

βαβααα

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

−++

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

−+++=

∑

(6)

retention if 1 n,acquisitio if 0

retention if 0 n,acquisitio if 1

ofmean Geometric

εεε

αα

αααααα

−

−=−

irtirt

rrii

irtt

Equation (6) is estimated using ordinary least squares on the stacked retention and

acquisition numbers for each brand for each time period, resulting in 39 brands × 10 time periods

× 2 (acquisition or retention) = 780 observations.

Customer Profit Margin: Figure 1 shows that profit margin per customer (π

) is a

function of marketing activities as well as brand equity. We model customer (gross) profit

margin as:

mitpm

kitpk

iitit

XXBEBEFa

υδβππ

∑∑∑

+−+−+=−

111

)()()( (7)

Fixed effect for brand i

Effect of brand equity component k on profit margin (p)

kit

Value of brand equity component k of brand i in period t

Effect of marketing activity m on profit margin (p)

mit

Value of marketing activity m of brand i in period t

Error term for brand i, profit margin (π) and period t

We include fixed effects and scale all variables relative to competition. The coefficient

represents the unit change in a brand’s profit, relative to competition, per unit change in its brand

equity component k, relative to competition. The coefficient

represents the impact of

marketing activity m on profit, again relative to competition. Note that we use data aggregated

-19-

across brands which is readily available to any firm. We consider this an adequate level of

analysis since brand equity is an inherently aggregate level construct. However, this does not

allow for inferences regarding differences across customers which may be of additional value,

e.g. for developing communication strategies for different target segments. The average effects

we estimate may also differ across brands, in particular luxury vs. non-luxury brands. We have

investigated this possibility by testing for statistical differences of the brand equity effects and

found no such indication.

CustomerLifetime Value

We calculate CLV using the Markov migration model advanced by Dwyer (1989) and

Berger and Nasr (1998). We draw directly on Pfeifer and Carraway (2000), who show how to

perform the calculation in a convenient matrix form. The migration model acknowledges that

customers are acquired, lost, and then sometimes return to the “nest” over time (see Blattberg,

Kim, and Neslin 2008, Chapter 5). In the context of the automobile market, the migration model

captures the scenario that a customer purchases a Buick in Year 1, switches to another car in

Year 4, and returns to Buick in Year 7.

The migration model starts with the “states” that characterize a customer at a particular

point in time. We define three states:

Own focal car, purchased in period t

Own focal car, purchased earlier than period t.

Own competitive car, purchased in period t or earlier.

Given these states, the following parameters are needed to calculate CLV for focal car i:

p Probability of purchasing a car in period t, i.e., the probability the customer is “in

the market” in period t.

-20-

irt

Probability of purchasing the focal car i in period t, given the customer currently

owns the focal car and purchases a car in period t (retention).

iat

Probability of purchasing the focal car i in period t, given the customer currently

owns a competitive car and purchases a car in period t (acquisition).

Profit margin per customer for the focal car i in period t.

The above definitions imply a “transition matrix” (Table 4) of the probabilities that customers

migrate from one state to another each period, as follows:

--- Table 4 ---

Own focal car, purchased in period t: The customer purchases a new car in period t + 1

with probability p and the probability that the purchased car will be the focal car is S*

irt

Therefore, the probability of buying the focal car in period t + 1 is pS*

irt

, i.e. the customer

purchased and was retained. The customer may purchase a different car with probability p(1 –

irt

). A customer who does not purchase any car is still an owner of the focal car, and so moves

from state 1 to state 2.

Own focal car, purchased earlier than period t: The probabilities of transitioning to the

various states are the same as if the customer started in state 1. The reason we distinguish

between states 1 and 2 is the profit implications are different – unless the customer purchases the

focal car, there is no profit margin.

Own competitive car, purchased in period t or earlier: The probability the customer

purchases a car is p, but now the probability of it being the focal car is the acquisition

probability, S*

iat

. So the probability of transitioning to state 1, owning the focal car purchased in

the period t + 1, is pS*

iat

and the probability of remaining in state 3, owner of a competitive car

purchased in period t + 1 or earlier, is 1 – pS*

iat

. A customer in state 3 cannot transition to state 2

because the customer owned a competitive car purchased before period t - 1.

-21-

The final ingredient needed to compute CLV is the profit margin depending on the

customer’s state. This can be captured by a 3 × 1 vector reflecting the contribution for each state:

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

(8)

If the customer purchases the focal car in the current period, the profit margin is

Pfeifer and Carraway (2000) show that CLV can be calculated as follows:

CLV = (I – (1+d)

-1

R (9)

I Identity matrix (3 × 3 in our case since we have three states).

P Transition matrix defined above and in Table 4 (3 x 3).

d Discount parameter (we set this to 0.10 or 10% per year for our calculations).

The key drivers of CLV are the conditional acquisition and retention probabilities

(contained in P) and the profit margin (contained in R). The estimates of Equation (6) provide

predictions of the unconditional probabilities of acquisition and retention. As described earlier,

we use these to work backwards and obtain the conditional probabilities, (the S

’s). The

estimates of Equation (7) provide the predictions of profit contribution needed for equation (8).

We consider the probability the customer purchases any car (p) to be exogenous, i.e., we assume

that brand equity does not affect the average interpurchase time nor vice-versa. According to

______ the average interpurchase times for the years we studied were ___ ___ ___ ___ and ___

respectively, suggesting what is seen by improvements by some that cause them to speed up

purchase are offset by the decision by others to postpone purchase. We therefore use a value of p

= 0.20, meaning the customer replaces a car every five years on average, which is what we

observe in the PIN data. This parameter affects the value of CLV (a higher p means higher CLV)

-22-

but for illustrating the impact of changes in brand equity, we believe the assumption of constant

p is reasonable and will not dramatically alter the implications of our scenario calculations.

RESULTS

Correlations

Correlations among the variables appear in Table 5. For example, differentiation is highly

correlated with margin (.63) and negatively with retention (-.43) and acquisition (-.48). This

suggests, as hypothesized, that differentiation is a double-edged sword: high differentiation

means the automobile is highly targeted and may appeal to customers in certain lifestages.

Relevance and knowledge are highly correlated with customer retention (.79 and .76) and

relevance is unsurprisingly highly correlated with customer acquisition (.69). We note high

correlations among variables that portend multicollinearity problems. For example, relevance is

highly correlated with several other variables; esteem is highly correlated with knowledge, etc.

This may inflate standard errors and render fewer significant results. However, we felt it was

important to be able to compare our results with other work that uses the BAV measures.

Therefore we did not orthogonalize the brand equity measures. To the extent we find significant

effects consistent with our hypotheses in the presence of multicollinearity, we believe that makes

our results all the stronger.

--- Table 5 ---

Determinants of Brand Equity Components

Table 6 presents estimates of equation (1) – brand equity as a function of marketing.

Advertising is positively linked to differentiation, relevance, and esteem while market presence

-23-

is positively related to relevance, esteem, and knowledge but negatively to differentiation - being

widely present is inconsistent with being “unique”. Overall, marketing clearly exerts an

important impact on the components of brand equity. In particular, the statistical significance of

the advertising and presence variables provide support for Hypothesis H2A.

--- Table 6 ---

Impact of Brand Equity on Acquisition and Retention

Table 7 presents the estimates of Equation (6), linking brand equity and marketing actions

to acquisition and retention. The brand equity components are related both to acquisition and

retention. In support of H5, differentiation is negatively related to acquisition and retention.

Knowledge is positively related to acquisition and retention, supporting H6. Esteem is positively

related to customer retention but not to acquisition, partially supporting Hypothesis H4. In partial

support of H3, relevance has a positive effect on acquisition (p < .10) but no significant impact

on retention. Overall, six out of the eight coefficients relating brand equity to acquisition and

retention are statistically significant at p < .10 (five coefficients at p < .05). Apparently,

acquiring and retaining customers requires capturing their hearts and minds (Fournier 1998).

Taken together, these findings lend support for Hypothesis H1 – “soft” customer mind-set

measures of brand equity relate to “hard” measures of acquisition and retention, the prime

ingredients of CLV, even after controlling for the impact of marketing activities.

--- Table 7 ---

As for the direct impact of marketing on acquisition and retention, there are significant

effects, supporting H2B. Advertising seems to be a crucial driver of customer acquisition as well

as customer retention. Price promotions are also significantly related to acquisition but not

-24-

retention. This is consistent with results on consumer packaged goods, where promotions tend to

increase “penetration” but have a weaker impact on “share of requirements”/loyalty (Ailawadi,

Lehmann, and Neslin 2003). Market presence increases acquisition as well as retention.

Interestingly, the number of new model launches and the average price are not significantly

related to acquisition or retention. The absence of a price effect may be due to the significant

impact of incentives, which involve price. The absence of a new products effect could be due to

the fact that most of the brands in our sample had active new product programs, and thus it was

difficult even for brands with higher than average new product development to stand out from

the crowd.

Impact on Customer Profit Margin

The estimates of Equation (7), relating brand equity and marketing to customer profit

margin, are in Table 8. Differentiation and knowledge again are the strong brand equity

measures. They both relate positively to profit, supporting Hypotheses H5 and H6. The impact of

relevance is significant at the 10% level, supporting H4. The impact of esteem has an

unexpected sign which could be due to multicollinearity but is not significant at the 10% level.

Overall, the finding that three of the four equity measures relate significantly to profit provides

support for H1.

--- Table 8 ---

Consistent with Hypothesis H2B, two marketing activities, advertising and market

presence, relate to profit margin. The negative impact of advertising is only significant at the

10% level, but is consistent with the “advertising as information” theory, which suggests that

advertising exposes consumers to more alternatives, underscores product differences, and hence

-25-

accentuates competition (Nelson 1974; Meurer and Stahl 1994). Such effects of advertising are

particularly likely in oligopolistic industries and those in which customers negotiate individual

prices (Scherer and Ross 1990; Gatignon 1984). Other studies have found similar effects of

advertising on price elasticity as well as revenues (e.g., Kanetkar et. al. 1992; Lodish et al. 1995).

Market presence, on the other hand, has a strong positive impact on profit margin.

Analysis of Indirect Effects

To further assess the role of brand equity, we conduct a series of Sobel tests to calculate

the indirect effect of each marketing variable on the components of CLV, operating through their

impact on the four brand equity components (Preacher and Hayes 2008). We obtain standard

errors for these coefficients using bootstrapping and test for the statistical significance of indirect

effects. These tests reveal that the effect of market presence on acquisition and retention operates

partially through customer based brand equity (Table 9). Specifically, 28% of the total effect of

market presence on acquisition and 29% of the effect on retention operates indirectly through the

four brand equity components. We also find evidence of a positive indirect effect of advertising

on profit margin. Thus, advertising increases margins by increasing brand equity, but decreases

margins through its direct effect noted earlier. Taken together, the two effects cancel out and lead

to a non significant total effect of advertising on margins.

--- Table 9 ---

Check for Endogeneity

The analysis of the relationships among customer acquisition, customer retention, profit

margin, marketing effort, and brand equity potentially is subject to endogeneity, in particular

-26-

simultaneity given the annual nature of our data. Customers may notice a car is popular (because

it is acquiring and retaining many customers) and adjust their brand equity perceptions.

Similarly, managers may observe the performance of their brands in terms of acquisition and

retention and adjust marketing accordingly. It is quite possible that these problems will not

materialize. For example, customers may not notice acquisition and retention rates. However,

this is an empirical question, one that we resolve by conducting endogeneity tests.

We conduct two tests for endogeneity, a Wu-Hausman F-test (Wu 1973, Hausman 1978)

and a Durbin-Wu-Hausman χ

-test (Durbin, 1954, Wu 1973, Hausman 1978).

The null

hypothesis in both tests is that endogeneity is not a problem. As a result, OLS and instrumental

variables (IV) estimates of equations such as Acquisition = f(brand equity, marketing) will both

be consistent and converge to the same estimates as sample size increases.

The choice of instruments is particularly challenging because the data are both cross-

section (brand) and time series (year). Ideally, instruments should vary by year and by brand. We

use two instruments: (1) fixed effects for each brand in the model, and (2) lagged values of

potentially endogenous variables (e.g., Differentiation

t-1

for Differentiation

, etc.; see Sudhir

2001; Vilcassim, Kadiyali and Chintagunta, 1999). For robustness, we also conducted the tests

using two-period lags (Boulding, Lee, and Staelin 1994; Neslin, Henderson, and Quelch 1985).

We test seven equations: acquisition, retention, profit margin, and the four pillar equations. In

total, we conduct 28 tests; Wu-Hausman and Durbin-Wu-Hausman, using either one-period or

two-period lags, for each of the seven equations.

We implemented these tests following Baum, Schaffer, and Stillman (2003, equations 53 and 54).

-27-

The results (Table 10) support the null hypothesis of no endogeneity. None of the 28

tests is significant at the 5% level; three are significant at the 10% level, consistent with what

would be expected due to chance.

--- Table 10 ---

QUANTIFYING THE IMPACT OF MARKETING AND BRAND EQUITY ON CLV

We examine the impact of changes in marketing actions and brand equity on the CLV of

an acquired customer. We consider two scenarios – (1) brand equity increases via a factor

outside the control of management (e.g., a trend toward greater esteem for cars built in a

particular country) and (2) marketing action taken by management (e.g., increases in advertising

or market presence). Equations (1), (6), and (7) specify the impact of a change in brand equity or

marketing on acquisition, retention, and profit margin. The scenarios are hypothetical but

demonstrate the magnitude, and hence managerial relevance, of the link between “soft” measures

(brand equity) and “hard measures” (acquisition, retention, profits, and CLV). We use equations

(8) and (9) to calculate CLV.

We use the 2008 Cadillac as our focal car. Table 11 shows the results. The first column

represents the current state of affairs – the base case. Cadillac is predicted to have a high

retention rate, 50.15%, but a low acquisition rate, 1.31%. Note that since there are 39 brands, a

“benchmark” acquisition rate would be approximately 1/39 or 2.5%. Cadillac’s low acquisition

rate is likely due to its smaller target group. In terms of brand equity, Cadillac rates higher than

average on all components with particular strength in esteem. Cadillac introduces fewer new

products and uses fewer incentives compared to other brands. However, its advertising and

market presence are slightly above average. Cadillac charges higher prices and is able to achieve

-28-

an above average profit margin of $19,260. Using equation (9) and assuming a 5-year purchase

cycle, the predicted CLV of its customers is $28,737.

---Table 11---

In this illustration, the interpurchase time of 5 years coupled with the retention rate of

50% plays an important role in CLV. Cadillac gets $19,260 when the customer is first acquired,

so there is $28,737-$19,260 = $9,477 in NPV remaining. The value if a customer re-buys a

Cadillac five years later, assuming a 10% discount rate, is (1/(1.1))

× $19,260 = $11,959. In

another five years, Cadillac has a 50% chance of retaining that customer again, which means a

.50 × .50 = .25 chance starting from the beginning. By ten years out, the discount factor is

(1/(1.1))

= .39 so the NPV of this is .39 × $19,260 = $7,426. The sum .50 × $11,959 + .25 ×

$7,426 = $7,836 is the majority of the $9,477 remaining NPV after the initial purchase. The NPV

of customers who buy a third time, etc., or defect and are then re-acquired comprise the

remaining $9,477-$7,836=$1,641 contribution to CLV. Clearly, retention and interpurchase time

play a large role in determining CLV.

Scenario 1: Increased advertising

We now assume Cadillac increases its advertising by .5 standard deviations; the net effect

(Table 6) on acquisition and retention would be positive although small (assuming that increases

in the one pillar does not cause a second order change in the other pillars). The reason is that

advertising-induced increases in differentiation tend to detract from retention and acquisition,

while the advertising-induced increases in other pillars, plus the direct impact of advertising,

tends to increase retention and acquisition (Table 7). These factors offset so the net impact is

positive but small. This result is consistent with studies showing a low advertising elasticity for

mature products (e.g., Hanssens, Parsons, and Schultz 2001). The same offsetting occurs

-29-

regarding profit contribution, yielding a slightly negative impact of -$33 per car. The net impact

on CLV is +$226, due to the slightly higher acquisition and retention rates. This scenario clearly

illustrates the offsetting direct and indirect effects of advertising, which result in only a small

positive impact of advertising on CLV.

Scenario 2: Increased market presence

In this scenario, Cadillac increases its marketing presence by .5 standard deviations, e.g.,

by increasing the number of dealers and perhaps increasing its product range. This decreases

differentiation, as the car becomes more “common” and less distinct. However, relevance,

esteem and knowledge increase as customers become more familiar with Cadillac.

The changes in brand equity result in some increase in acquisition, and a substantial

increase in retention, from 50% to 67%. Profitability also increases because knowledge has a

strong impact on profit, as does market presence directly. This is partially offset by the negative

direct impact of a decrease in differentiation, but the net result is that profit margin increases. As

a result, CLV increases from $28,736 to $32,455, a gain of $6,719, or 13%.

Market presence therefore is a key marketing “lever”. It sets in motion gains in relevance,

esteem, and knowledge that increase its draw from competitors (acquisition) and, more

substantially, its retention of current customers. In addition, net profitability per customer

increases so all three components of CLV (acquisition, retention, and profit margin) move in the

right direction. While the 13% gain in CLV is substantial, the increase has some face validity. A

doubling or tripling in CLV would seem unrealistic, but a 13% increase due to investing in more

dealers and extending the product line seems reasonable.

-30-

Scenario 3 – Exogenous change in brand equity

Brand equity sometimes changes for reasons outside the managerial actions quantified in

our model, e.g. a competitive mis-step (e.g., Toyota’s acceleration problem) or a product

placement or “viral” activity (e.g. placing the Mini-Cooper in the movie The Italian Job).

As an example, assume Cadillac increases its differentiation from 2.25 to 3, the level of

BMW. Table 7 suggests a decrease in retention rate and a smaller decrease in acquisition. Table

8 indicates an increase in profits, so that margin increases to $19,458. The net result is that CLV

increases to $29,187, an increase of $450, or 1.6% over the base case. The lower retention rate

brought about by higher differentiation is offset by the higher profit margin that comes with

higher differentiation.

The message of these illustrative scenarios is that changes in marketing actions have a

meaningful impact on brand equity, which in turn begets meaningful changes in acquisition,

retention, profit margin per customer, and ultimately, CLV and firm value. Exogenous changes

in brand equity, not directly due to managerial actions, also can have meaningful impacts on

customer acquisition, retention, profit margin, and CLV. The main point is that “soft” brand

equity measures are managerially important, not only from a “positioning” standpoint, but from a

financial standpoint as well, namely in determining the lifetime value of the brand’s customers.

SUMMARY

This paper conducted an empirical examination of the relationship between brand equity

and the components of CLV, capitalizing on a unique database comprised of 10 years of brand

equity measures as well as the customer acquisition, retention, and profitability numbers that

generate CLV. It also examined the role of marketing actions in this context, both as a generator

-31-

of brand equity, and as a control for ensuring the apparent relationship between brand equity and

CLV is not spurious. The major findings are:

•

Brand equity has a predictable and meaningful impact on all components of CLV, namely

customer acquisition, retention, and profitability. Importantly, brand equity is strongly

related with retention, consistent with the notion of building brand relationships

(Fournier 1998).

•

This relationship stands even after controlling for a broad array of marketing activities,

which impact CLV both directly and indirectly through brand equity

•

The individual components of brand equity exert different effects on acquisition,

retention and profit margins. In particular, brand differentiation increases customer

profitability but decreases acquisition and retention.

These findings demonstrate the link between the “soft” measures of the customer’s

attachment to the brand and the “hard” measures that comprise CLV. This means that the battle

for the hearts and minds of customers is a meaningful one which has quantifiable ramifications

for customer profitability.

Not all of our specific hypotheses were supported, in that not all measures were

statistically significant. However, several were in interesting and meaningful ways, and the key

test – that brand equity adds explanatory power of CLV over and above marketing activities –

was strongly supported. Our data were tinged with multicollinearity, and our statistical models

used fixed effects. Because this much “control” can wipe out statistical relationships, the fact that

we still obtained statistically and managerially significant results is encouraging. However, the

non significant relationships should be interpreted with caution since multicollinearity could

have played a role. We have employed several robustness checks, such as redoing our analysis

-32-

with random subsamples, and found our results to be generally reliable, in particular regarding

the effect of brand equity. For marketing intstruments we have identified links where

multicollinearity could have led to non significant test statistics. In particular advertising has a

significant impact on knowledge (p < .05) in some more parsimonoues models. Despite a lock of

theory, we have also tested for potential interaction effects between the pillars of brand equity

and found that including interactions does not improve model fit in any our models (p > .10).

This suggest that parsimounous models with main effects only can adequately capture the effect

of brand equity on CLV. While the statistical relationships we measured were the impact of

brand equity on the components of CLV, we were able to aggregate these components to

calculate the impact on CLV itself. To this end, we used the Markov migration model of CLV,

which allows customers to switch in and out of a brand over time. We demonstrated using

reasonable scenarios that changes in marketing would change brand equity, which in turn would

change acquisition, retention, and profitability. We also showed that exogenous changes in brand

equity could affect CLV in meaningful ways.

While our work benefited from an exceptional database, it still begs for replication and

extension. We examined one industry (automobiles) and one set of specific measures of brand

equity (the Brand Asset Valuator); clearly the field needs to generalize beyond this. In addition,

our work is aggregate – at the product/year level. Further work is needed to examine these

relationships at the customer level to better understand the process behind the results. Note also

we have not captured the financial benefit of acquiring cohorts of new customers, which depends

on brand equity. In terms of firm decisions, this obviously should be taken into account. Finally,

the CLV calculations here are somewhat myopic. They neither capture word of mouth effects

(which are only indirectly represented by market presence and the four BAV pillars) nor the

-33-

profits from service (of major importance to dealers as well as a profit source to the manufacturer

for parts sold to dealers). We hope this paper encourages work in these and related directions.

For managers, our work suggests that it should never be “brand management versus

customer management.” The two should be managed in a coordinated fashion. The notion that

brand managers are in one corner, working with ad agencies to win hearts and minds, while the

customer/CRM managers are in another corner, designing direct marketing campaigns for

acquisition and retention, is outdated. The two need to work together, because brand equity and

CLV work together.

-34-

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,” California

Management Review, 38(3), 102-20.

------ (2004), Brand Portfolio Strategy. New York: The Free Press.

------ and Robert Jacobson (1994), “The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 191-201.

------ and ------ (2001), “The Value Relevance of Brand Attitude in High-

Technology Markets,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 485-93.

Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004), “When Good Brands Do Bad,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.

Agres, Stuart

J. and Tony M. Dubitsky (1996), “Changing Needs for Brands,” Journal of

Advertising Research, 36(1), 21–30.

Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott A. Neslin (2003), “Revenue Premium as an

Outcome Measure of Brand Equity,“ Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1-17.

Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social

Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice-Hall.

Alba, Joseph and Wesley J. Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,“ Journal

of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-54.

Ataman, Berk M., Herald J. van Heerde, and Carl F. Mela (2009), “The Long-term Effect of

Marketing Strategy on Brand Sales,” Working paper.

Baum, Christopher, Mark E. Schaffer, and Steven Stillman (2003), “Instrumental Variables and

GMM: Estimation and Testing,” Stata Journal, 3(1), 1-31

Berger, Paul D. and Nada I. Nasr (1998), “Customer Lifetime Value: Marketing Models and

Applications,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 17–30.

Blattberg, Robert C., Byung-Do Kim, and Scott A. Neslin (2008), Database Marketing:

Analyzing and Managing Customers. New York: Springer.

Blattberg, Robert C., Edward C. Malthouse, and Scott A. Neslin (2009), “Customer Lifetime

Value: Empirical Generalizations and Some Conceptual Questions,” Journal of Interactive

Marketing, 23 (2), 157-168.

-35-

Boulding, William, Eunkyu Lee, and Richard Staelin (1994), "Mastering the mix: Do

advertising, promotion, and sales force activities lead to differentiation?," Journal of

Marketing Research, 31(1), 159-72.

Bucklin, Randolph E., S. Siddarth, and Jorge M. Silva-Risso (2008), “Distribution Intensity and

New Car Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45(4), 473-86.

Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989), "Consumer Preference Formation and

Pioneering Advantage," Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285-98.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and

Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing,

65(2), 81-93.

Cooper, Lee G. and Masao Nakanishi (1988), Market Share Analysis: Evaluating Competitive

Marketing Effectiveness. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

D'Aveni, Richard A. (1995), Hypercompetitive Rivalries: Competing in Highly Dynamic

Environments, New York: The Free Press

Day, George S. and Robin Wensley (1988), “Assessing Advantage: A Framework for

Diagnosing Competitive Superiority,” Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 1-20.

Durbin, J. (1954), “Errors in Variables,“ Review of the International Statistical Institute, 22(1),

23-32.

Dwyer, F. Robert (1989), “Customer Lifetime Valuation to Support Marketing Decision

Making,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 3(4), 8-15.

Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard (1995), Consumer Behavior. Eighth

Edition, Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.

Farris, Paul W., Neil T. Bendle, Phillip E. Pfeifer, and David Reibstein (2006), Marketing

Metrics: 50+ Metrics Every Executive Should Master. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Wharton School Publishing.

Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-73.

Gatignon, Hubert (1984), “Competition as a Moderator of the Effect of Advertising on Sales,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 387-98.

Gupta, Sunil and Donald R. Lehmann (2005), Managing Customers as Investments,

Philadelphia,

Wharton School of Publishing.

-36-

Gupta, Sunil, Donald R. Lehmann, and Jennifer Ames Stuart (2004), “Valuing Customers,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 7-18.

Hanssens, Dominique H., Leonard J. Parsons and Randall L. Schultz (2001), Market Response

Models: Econometric and Time Series Analysis, 2nd Edition, Boston:Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Hausman, J. (1978), “Specification Tests in Econometrics,” Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271.

Hogan, John E., Donald R. Lehmann, Maria Merino, Rajendra K. Srivastave, Jacquelyn S.

Thomas, and Peter C. Verhoef (2002), “Linking Customer Assets to Financial

Performance,” Journal of Service Research, 5(1), August, 26-38.

------, Katherine M. Lemon, and Barak Labai (2003), “What is the True Value of a Lost

Customer?,” Journal of Service Research, 5(3), 196-208.

Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior. NY: John Wiley.

Jie, Du, Xie Lili, and Stephan Schroeder (2009), “PIN Optimal Distribution of Auction Vehicles

System: Applying Price Forecasting, Elasticity Estimation, and Genetic Algorithms to

Used-Vehicle Distribution,” Marketing Science, 28(4), 637-44.

Kamakura, Wagner A. and Gary J. Russel (1993), “Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data,”

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 9-22.

Kanetkar, Vinay, Charles B. Weinberg, and Doyle L. Weiss (1992), “Price Sensitivity and

Television Advertising Exposures: Some Empirical Findings,” Marketing Science, 11(4),

359-472.

Keller, Kevin Lane and Donald R. Lehmann (2003), “How do Brands Create Value”, Marketing

Management, 12, May-June, 26-31.

Keller, Kevin L. (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, Kevin L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management. 3rd. Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

------ and Donald R. Lehmann (2003), “The Brand Value Chain: Optimizing

Strategic and Financial Brand Performance,” Marketing Management, 12(3), 26-31.

------ and ------ (2006), “Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities,”

Marketing Science, 25(6), 740-59.

-37-

Kerin, Roger A. and Raj Sethuraman (1998), “Exploring the Brand Value-Shareholder Value

Nexus for Customer Goods Companies,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26

(14), 260-73.

Khan, Romana, Michael Lewis, and Vishal Singh (2009), “Dynamic Customer Management and

the Value of One-to-One Marketing,” Marketing Science, 28(6), 1063-79.

Kotler, Philip, and Kevin Lane Keller (2009), Marketing Management, 13

Edition, Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Lambert-Pandraud, Raphaëlle, Gilles Laurent, and Eric Lapersonne (2005), “Repeat Purchasing

of New Automobiles by Older Consumers: Empirical Evidence and Interpretations,”

Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 97–113.

Landwehr, Jan R., Aparna A. Labroo and Andreas Herrmann (2009), “The Pervasive Effect of

Aesthetics on Choice: Evidence from a Field Study,“ Advances in Consumer Research, 36,

751-52.

Lapersonne, Eric, Gilles Laurent, and Jean-Jacques Le Goff (1995), “Consideration Sets of Size

One: An Empirical Investigation of Automobile Purchases,” International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 12(1), 55–66.

Lehmann, Donald R., Kevin L. Keller, and John U. Farley (2008), “The Structure of Survey-

Based Brand Metrics,” Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 29-56.

------ and David J. Reibstein (2006), Marketing Metrics and Financial Performance, Marketing

Science Institute Monograph.

Leone, Robert P., Vithala R. Rao, Kevin L. Keller, Anita M. Luo, Leigh McAlister, and Rajendra

Srivastava (2006), “Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity,” Journal of Service

Research, 9(2), 125–38.

Levav, Jonathan and Dan Ariely (2000), “Sequential Variety-Seeking in Group Settings: Taking

the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279-90.

Lodish, Leonard M., Magid Abraham, Stuart Kalmenson, Jeanne Livelsberger, Beth Lubetkin,

Bruce Richardson, and Mary E. Stevens (1995), “How T.V. Advertising Works: A Meta-

Analysis of 389 Real World Split Cable T.V. Advertising Experiments,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 32(2), 125-39.

MacKenzie, Scott B. (1986), “The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on

Attribute Importance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195.

Madden, Thomas J., Frank Fehle, and Susan Fournier (2006), “Brands Matter: An Empirical

Demonstration of the Creation of Shareholder Value Through Branding,” Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2) 224-35.

-38-

Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala R. Rao and Rajendra K. Srivastava (1994), “An Approach to Assess the

Importance of Brand Equity in Acquisition Decisions,” Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 11(3), 221-235.

Meurer, Michael and Dale Stahl (1994), “Informative Advertising and Product Match,”

International Journal of Industrial Organization, 12(1), 1-19.

Mizik, Natalie and Robert Jacobson (2008), “The Financial Value Impact of Perceptual Brand

Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 15–32.

Mulhern, Francis J. (1999), “Customer Profitability Analysis: Measurement, Concentration, and

Research Directions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13 (1), 25-40.

Nelson, Phillip (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, 82(4), 729-

54.

Neslin, Scott A., Caroline Henderson, and John Quelch (1985), "Consumer Promotions and the

Acceleration of Product Purchases," Marketing Science, 4(2), 147-66.

Park, Chan S. and V. Srinivasan (1994), “A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and

Understanding Brand Equity and its Extendability,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2),

271-88.

Park, Whan C., Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. Maclnnis (1986), "Strategic Brand Concept-

Image Management," Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-45.

Pauwels, Koen, Jorge Silva-Risso, Shuba Srinivasan and Dominique M. Hanssens (2004), “New

Products, Sales Promotions, and Firm Value: The Case of the Automobile Industry,”

Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 142-56.

Peppers, Don and Martha Rogers (2004), Managing Customer Relationships. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Pfeifer, Phillip E. and Robert L. Carraway (2000), “Modelling Customer Relationships as

Markov Chains,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 43–55.

Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for

Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,“ Behavioral

Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

Punj, Girish and Richard Brookes (2002), “The Influence of Pre-Decisional Constraints on

Information Search and Consideration Set Formation in New Automobile Purchases,“

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 383-401

-39-

Ratner, Rebecca K. and Barbara E. Kahn (2002), “The Impact of Private versus Public

Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 246-

57.

Rust, Roland T., Varlarie A. Zeithaml, and Katherine N. Lemon (2000), Driving Customer

Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value Is Reshaping Corporate Strategy. New York: The

Free Press.

Rust, Roland T., Katherine N. Lemon, and Varlarie A. Zeithaml (2004), "Return on Marketing:

Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 109-

27.

Scherer, Frederic M. and David Ross (1990), Industrial Market Structures and Economic

Performance, Chicago: Houghton Mifflin.

Simon, Carol J. and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), “The Measurement and Determinants of Brand

Equity: A Financial Approach,” Marketing Science, 12(1), 28-52.

Slotegraaf, Rebecca J. and Koen Pauwels (2008), “The Impact of Brand Equity and Innovation

on the Long-Term Effectiveness of Promotions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3),

293–306.

Srinivasan, Shuba and Dominique M. Hanssens (2009), “Marketing and Firm Value: Metrics,

Methods, Findings and Future Directions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 293-

312.

Srinivasan, V., Chan S. Park and Dae R. Chang (2005), “An Approach to the Measurement,

Analysis, and Prediction of Brand Equity and Its Sources,” Management Science, 51(9),

1433-48.

Srinivasan, Narasimhan and Brian T. Ratchford (1991), “An Empirical Test of a Model of

External Search for Automobiles,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2), 233-42.

Srinivasan, Shuba, Marc Vanhuele, and Koen Pauwels (2010), “Mind-Set Metrics in Market

Response Models: An Integrative Approach, “ Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 672-

84.

Srivastava, Rajendra K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam Fahey (1998), “Market-Based Assets

and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2-18.

Sudhir, K. (2001), "Structural Analysis of Manufacturer Pricing in the Presence of a Strategic

Retailer," Marketing Science, 20(3), 244-65.

Swait, Joffre, Erdem, Tulin, Louviere, Jordan, and Chris Dubelaar (1993), “The Equalization

Price: A Consumer-Perceived Measure of Brand Equity,” International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 10(1), 23-45.

-40-

Venkatesan, Rajkumar and V. Kumar (2004), “A Customer Lifetime Value Framework for

Customer Selection and Resource Allocation Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 106-

25.

Vilcassim, Naufel J., Vrinda Kadiyali, and Pradeep K. Chintagunta (1999), "Investigating

Dynamic Multifirm Market Interactions in Price and Advertising," Management Science,

45(4), 499-518.

Winkielman, Piotr, Jasmin Halberstadt, Tedra Fazendeiro, and Steve Catty (2006), “Prototypes

are Attractive Because they are Easy on the Mind,“ Psychological Science, 17(9), 799-806.

Wu, D. (1973), “Alternative Tests of Independence Between Stochastic Regressors and

Disturbances,” Econometrica, 41(4), 733-750.

-41-

TABLES

Table 1: Hypotheses of the Impact of Brand Equity on Components of CLV

Acquisition Rate Retention Rate Profit Margin

Relevance + + +

Esteem + + +

Differentiation - - +

Knowledge + + +

-42-

Table 2: Four Brand Equity Components of Brand Asset Valuator Model

Components of

Brand Equity

Perceptual Metrics

Aggregate Measure

Differentiation

1. Uniqueness % responding “yes”

2. Distinctiveness % responding “yes”

3. Differentiation % responding “yes”

4. Innovativeness % responding “yes”

5. Dynamics % responding “yes”

Relevance

1. Relevant to me Average score on 1-7 scale

Esteem

1. Regard Average score on 1-7 scale

2. Leadership % responding “yes”

3. High Quality % responding “yes”

4. Reliability % responding “yes”

Knowledge

1. Familiarity with the brand Average score on 1-7 scale

Values for components of brand equity are calculated as a formative index of all items

-43-

Table 3: Calculation of Conditional Acquisition and Retention Probabilities

* E.g., of the 100 customers who owned Brand A in period T-1, 68 customers purchase the same Brand A in

period T, 14 switch to Brand B, 12 switch to Brand C, and 6 switch to Brand D.

Period T

Brand A B C D

∑

Period

T -1

A 68 14 12 6 100

B 21 60 12 7 100

C 15 18 62 5 100

D 20 17 16 47 100

∑ 124 109 102 65 400

Unconditional Retention 68/400=.17 .15 .16 .12 .59

Unconditional Acquisition 56/400=.14 .12 .10 .05 .41

Conditional Retention 68/100=.68 .60 .62 .47

Conditional Acquisition 56/300=.19 .16 .13 .06

-44-

Table 4: Transition Matrix of Migration Probabilities per Period

Period t+1

Period t State 1: Own

focal car,

purchased in

period t + 1

State 2: Own focal

car, purchased

earlier than

period t + 1

State 3: Own

competitive car,

purchased in period

t + 1 or earlier

State 1: Own focal car,

purchased in period t

pS*

irt

1 – p p(1 – S*

irt

)

State 2: Own focal car,

purchased earlier than

period t

pS*

irt

1 – p p(1 – S*

irt

)

State 3: Own competitive

car, purchased in period t

or earlier

pS*

iat

0 1 - pS*

iat

-45-

Table 5: Correlation Matrix of Marketing Actions, Components of Brand Equity and Customer Lifetime Value

Components of Brand Equity Marketing Activities Components of CLV

Differen

tiation Relevance Esteem Knowledge Advertising

New Model

Launches

Price

Promotions Pricing

Market

Presence

Customer

Retention

Customer

Acquisition

Components of BE

Differentiation 1.00

Relevance -.40 1.00

Esteem .22 .65 1.00

Knowledge -.22 .77 .70 1.00

Marketing Activities

Advertising -.34 .77 .41 .57 1.00

New Model Launches -.16 .37 .26 .31 .49 1.00

Price Promotions .26 -.13 .09 -.14 -.13 -.01 1.00

Pricing .67 -.20 .42 .05 -.32 -.13 .22 1.00

Market Presence -.54 .88 .41 .69 .56 .41 -.25 -.28 1.00

Components of CLV

Customer Retention -.43 .79 .52 .76 .77 .42 -.16 -.25 .78 1.00

Customer Acquisition -.48 .69 .30 .54 .79 .44 -.12 -.44 .72 .88 1.00

Profit Margin .63 -.20 .35 .06 -.28 -.10 -.10 .90 -.27 -.25 -.42

-46-

Table 6: Drivers of the Components of Brand Equity (Equation 1)*

Differentiation Relevance Esteem Knowledge

Marketing Activities

St. Coef. t value St. Coef. t value St. Coef. t value St. Coef. t value

Advertising .26

4.83

.24

5.12

.25

5.19

.00

0.69

New Model Launches .02

0.99

-.02

-1.15

.00

0.13

-.02

-1.54

Price Promotions

.01

0.16

.01

0.58

-.01

-.78

-.01

-0.20

Pricing -.14

-1.68

.03

0.28

-.01

-.23

.06

0.50

Market Presence -.41

-3.72

.53

5.77

.12

1.86

.62

7.72

R²

.91 .95 .95 .95

* Note: The values of the estimated fixed effects are not included in the table.

-47-

Table 7: Impact of Brand Equity on Acquisition, and Retention (Equation 6)*

Customer Acquisition Customer Retention

Stand. Coeff. t value Stand. Coeff. t value

Components of BE

Differentiation

-0.06 -2.08 -0.13 -4.66

Relevance

0.09 1.89 -0.02 -0.48

Esteem

-0.03 -0.68 0.10 2.13

Knowledge

0.16 4.51 0.35 9.70

Marketing Activities

Advertising

0.10 3.40 0.06 2.12

New Model Launches

0.01 0.75 -0.01 -1.03

Price Promotions

0.04 3.45 0.01 1.00

Price

-0.04 -0.91 0.01 0.20

Market Presence

0.29 4.79 0.34 5.55

Intercept Acquisition/Retention

0.13 3.33 -0.26 -6.36

R² .95

* Note: The values of the estimated fixed effects are not shown in the table.

-48-

Table 8: Drivers of Profit Margin (Equation 7)*

Stand. Coeff. t value

Components of BE

Differentiation

0.36 5.97

Relevance

0.17 1.73

Esteem

-0.16 -1.52

Knowledge

0.18 2.13

Marketing Activities

Advertising

-0.12 -1.74

New Model Launches

-0.01 -0.56

Price Promotions

0.01 0.34

Market Presence

0.32 2.69

R² .91

* Note: The values of the estimated fixed effects are not shown in the table.

-49-

Table 9: Direct and Indirect Effects of Marketing Activities on the Components of CLV*

CLV Component with

Marketing Variables

Beneath

Indirect Effects

Direct Effects

(From Tables 7 and 8)

Acquisition Stand. Coeff. t value

Stand. Coeff. t value

Advertising

.02 2.02 .10 3.40

New Model Launches -.01 -.21 .01 .75

Price Promotions

.00 .26 .04 3.45

Price

.04 1.97 -.04 -.91

Market Presence .32 4.69 .29 4.79

Retention

Advertising .02 .98 .06 2.12

New Model Launches

-.00 -.36 -.01 -1.03

Price Promotions

.01 .52 .01 1.00

Price .03 1.85 .01 .20

Market Presence

.33 4.73 .34 5.55

Profit Margin

Advertising

.13 3.22 -.12 -1.74

New Model Launches -.00 -.30 -.01 -.56

Price Promotions

.00 .05 .01 .34

Market Presence

.02 .26 .32 2.69

* Note: For ease of interpretation this table reports standardized coefficients only. In the text we

report percentages of indirect to total effects, which were calculated, based on unstandardized

coefficients.

-50-

Table 10: Endogeneity Tests

p-values (using 1-period lags) p-values (using 2-period lags)

Equation

Wu-Hausman

F-test

Durbin-Wu-

Hausman

χ2-test

Wu-Hausman

F-test

Durbin-Wu-

Hausman

χ2-test

Customer Acquisition

.52 .38 .64 .48

Customer Retention .13 .10 .31 .18

Profit Margin .50 .36 .39 .24

Pillar Differentiation

.20 .16 .11 .07

Pillar Relevance .57 .48 .49 .38

Pillar Esteem .19 .12 .11 .08

Pillar Knowledge .11 .08 .20 .13

-51-

Table 11: Illustrations of the Impact of Changes in Marketing and Brand Equity on CLV

Variable

Base

Case*

Scenario 1

Increased

Ad Spending

(+ .5 sd)

Scenario 2

Increased

Market Presence

(+ .5 sd)

Scenario 3

Increased

Differentiation

(BMW = 3)

Marking Activities

Advertising 41.24

151

41.24 41.24

New Model Launches -0.22 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22

Price Promotions -12,423 -12,423 -12,423 -12,423

Price 14,792 14,792 14,792 14,792

Market Presence 0.38 0.38

1.29

0.38

Brand Equity

Differentiation 2.25 2.69 1.59

3.00

Relevance 0.17 0.22 0.32 0.17

Esteem

8.59 9.20 9.25 8.59

Knowledge

0.58 0.58 0.80 0.58

Components of CLV

Acquisition 1.31% 1.37% 1.62% 1.29%

Retention 50.15% 51.06% 66.87% 48.71%

Net Profit $18,885 $18,852 $19,925 $19,457

CLV

$28,736 $28,963 $32,455 $29,187

* For comparison purposes, the brand equity and CLV components in this column as well as the scenarios are as

predicted by our estimates of equations (1), (6), and (7) (Tables 7, 8, and 9), given the levels for marketing activities

specified above. The actual brand equity and CLV components for Cadillac in 2008 are: Differentiation = 1.79,

Relevance = 0.34, Esteem = 5.66, Knowledge = 0.48, Acquisition Rate = 0.71%, Retention Rate = 39.9%, and Profit

Margin = $21,903. The actual CLV calculated from these numbers is $31,223.

-52-

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Marketing Actions

Advertising Innovation Price Promotions Pricing Market Presence

Customer-Based Brand Equity

Differentiation Relevance Esteem Knowledge

Components of Customer Lifetime Value

Customer Acquisition Customer Retention Profit Margin

Product-Market Revenue and Profits