empirical RESEARCH ON brand

awarness in GROCERY retailING

Dan Cristian Dabija*

Abstract: By developing awareness on the target market, i.e. in

consumers’ minds, companies can pursuit a proper market development
strategy, reach a certain position on the market, become well-known
and being taken at a certain moment when consumers make buying
decisions. Along with sympathy, trust, image, satisfaction or loyalty,
brand awareness becomes a main vector that has a crucial role to
outline brand equity. Companies can measure brand awareness through
regular research and see how consumers perceive them. The current
paper focuses in the first instance on describing brand awareness
dimensions and, secondly, on offering a suitable instrument capable of
measuring awareness at retailers. A research conducted on more than
6.000 consumers shows a significant awareness of the analyzed retailers
present for a longer time on the market. Finally the article suggests
several measures that are meant to contribute to successfully implement
strategies to increase brand awareness.
Keywords: awareness, recall, recognition, retail brands
JEL Classification: M3, M31

1. Retail Brand Equity

(an Instrument to Control Brand Management)
In order that a brand may be properly managed, the brand owner
must understand its value and all the advantages that may be gained
through its constant support. Brand equity may be measured both
* Babeş-Bolyai University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania. E-mail address: cristian.dabija@econ.ubbcluj.ro.

21
from its owner’s and the consumers’ point of view. This is done (both)
by quantitative (financial) and behavioural indicators. Both of them
lead to defining strategic decisions regarding correct and efficient
brand positioning on the selected market. Quantitative indicators may
evaluate the company’s competitive position (market share, relative
market share, density of retail chain), market dimensions (structure of
competition, innovation degree of products, market size, volume and
structure of sales), evolution of profits or turnover or advertising costs
for brand management1. Among quantitative indicators, one could also
count the future revenues estimated to be brought in by the brand as
a result of an increase in productivity or of a positive evolution of the
market share or sales. Some authors recommend weighing these values
by means of subjective assessments and causal correspondences. By
doing so, “brand performance”2 may be obtained.
For consumers, the financial value of brand equity is represented
by the “premium price” that they are willing to pay, extra, for the
merchandise or service properly branded instead for the identical,
unbranded version. This premium price premium is especially
noticeable in the case of brands that are deeply anchored in consumers’
minds. And last but not least, the extra cash flow generated by the
correlation between a brand and a product or service may also be
considered brand equity3. Due to the subjectivity of the endeavour and
the fact that individuals rarely exhibit constant, predictable behaviour
over time, it is more difficult to establish their perception of a certain
service, product or brand. Ideally, a manner of determining the
perceived brand equity should be defined for each individual consumer.
Since such an effort would not be representative and the costs involved
would be too high, specialists resort to perception measurement with
the aid of various theoretical concepts such as image, awareness or

1 Esch F.R., Strategie und Technik der Markenführung, Fifth Edition,

Vahlen, München, 2007.
2 Franzen O., Trommsdorf V., Riedel F., Ansätze der Markenbewertung
und Markenbilanz, in Bruhn M., Handbuch Marke, Volume 2, Schäffer-
Poeschel, Stuttgart, 1994, pp. 1373-1401.
3 Beckemeier-Feuerhahn S., Marktorientierte Markenbewertung, DUV,
Frankfurt, 1998, p. 70.

22
brand associations4. Of course, these concepts must be operationalized,
which means that they need to be adequately changed into statements
over which consumers can express their level of agreement.
Due to their relatively abstract nature, behavioural indicators are
likely more difficult to understand5. Almost all theoretical models
proposed by different authors are mainly based on brand awareness
or image (see for example the models developed by Kevin L. Keller’s
or David Aaker and Aaker’s models6). Other authors, after having
conducted empirical studies, came to the conclusion that brand equity
may be achieved by taking into consideration indicators, such as
brand sympathy (brand affection), brand attachment, brand purchase
frequency and brand repurchase intention, trust, brand associations,
brand recommendation, loyalty, satisfaction or contentment induced
by brand use7.

4 Morschett D., Retail Branding und Integriertes Handelsmarketing,

Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2002, p. 56.
5 Esch F.R., Geus P., Langner T., Brand performance Measurement zur
wirksamen Markennavigation, in Controlling, Year 14, Nr. 8/9, 2002,
pp. 39-47.
6 Keller K.L., Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer
based brand equity, in Journal of Marketing, Year 57, Nr. 1, 1993,
pp.1-22; Aaker D., Brand Portofolio Strategy – Creating Relevance,
Differentiation, Energy, Leverage and Clarity, New York, 2004; Esch,
2007, p. 65.
7 Aaker D.A., Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,
in California Management Review, Year 3, No. 3, 1996, pp. 102-120;
Baker J., Parasuraman A., Grewal D., Voss G.B., The Influence of
Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and
Patronage Intentions, in Journal of Marketing, Year 66, 2002, pp. 120-
141; Chowdhury J., Reardon J., Srivastava R., Alternative Modes of
Measuring Store Image: An Empirical Assessment of Structured
Versus Unstructured Measures, in Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Year 6, Nr. 2, 1998, pp. 72-86; del Rio B., Vasquez R., Iglesias
V., The effects of brand associations on consumer response, in Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Year 18, No. 5, 2001, pp. 410-425; Esch, Geus,
Langner, 2002, pp. 39-47; Lassar W., Mittal B., Sharma A., Measuring
customer – based brand equity, in Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Year 12, No. 4, 1995, pp. 11-19; Léo P.Y., Philippe J., Retail Centres:

23
 It may be asserted that brand equity is synonymous with its “power”,
“force” or “vitality”, therefore brand “strength” represents that driving
force resulted from the subjective evaluation of branding and which
determines present and future behaviour of consumer. In other words,
behavioural brand equity is the result of various consumers’ reactions
to brand marketing measures and actions, compared with identical
measures of a fictional or competitor brand8.

2. Brand Awareness Theoretical Models

In his model, Aaker considers that awareness refers to the level of
knowledge of the analysed brand’s name and symbol. Within brand
equity, Aaker also integrates brand loyalty, supposed or perceived
quality, brand associations, and other brand merits (represented
by patents, distribution systems/channels and various marks)9.
According to Keller, brand awareness, together with its image,
are the vectors that compose brand equity’s “origins” or the brand
knowledge10. His merit is that of decomposing awareness in two
components: brand recall or spontaneous awareness, also called
active awareness due to its visual and verbal anchors (signs, words,
colour codes, specific shapes), and assisted awareness, or passive,
that requires its identification through verbal and non-verbal access
of consumers’ mind associations.
Another model that includes brand awareness is that of brand
“iceberg”, composed of brand “outlook” (upper part of the iceberg)
and brand “deposit” (lower part of the iceberg). Awareness is one of
the upper elements of the iceberg, together with subjective perception
of advertising, level of commercials’ anchorage in consumers’ mind,

Location and Consumer’s Satisfaction, in Service Industries Journal,

Year 22, No. 1, 2002, pp. 122-146; Sirdeshmkh D., Singh J., Sabol B.,
Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges, in
Journal of Marketing, Year 66, 2002, pp. 15-37.
8 Beckemeier-Feuerhahn, 1998, p. 37.
9 Aaker, 2004, p.32; Esch, 2007, p. 65.
10 Keller K.L., Aperia T., Georgson M., Strategic Brand Management, A
European Edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, 2008; pp. 49-62;
Keller, 1993, pp. 1-22.

24
brand uniqueness, clearness of impression or of internal reflection of
the brand and brand attractiveness. All these indicators contribute to
the outline and anchorage of brand’s “deposit” in the mind of consumer,
which is measurable through the use of sympathy, loyalty and trust11. Of
course, a product, service or retail company continuously contributes
to the creation of brand concept and to its deposit consolidation.
Brand awareness, along with positive or negative opinions on a
service, contributes to the adequate brand perception12. Perception,
which is closely correlated with attention, thinking and memory13,
constitutes, besides brand conscience (given the risk associated with
acquisition), the level of involvement (high versus low involvement),
and brand utility, the foundation of brand strength. In fact, only
powerful brands can enjoy success among consumers, being preferred
to the detriment of weak ones. It becomes evident that a brand will be
consolidated and thus become strong only in time. Various positive
characteristics that consumer will perceive on various occasions will
contribute to the increase of its strength, while negative experiences
will lead him to consider the brand as a weak one.
Keller concludes in his model that awareness consists of two
dimensions14, namely, the depth of awareness formed by the ease
and speed of brand recall and the width of awareness made up of the
specific situations when a person is able to remember certain brand
characteristics. Aaker manages to even build a brand awareness
pyramid. The different levels of awareness are according to the degree
to which consumers may or may not indicate or recognize a certain
brand15. Therefore, if a person asked to name a retail brand does
not succeed in indicating one, even after a longer period of thinking
time, it is considered that the retail brand is unknown. When the
consumer can identify the retail brand from a list or when he decides
to visit the store only when in front of it, the brand has an assisted or

11 Esch, 2007, pp. 635-642.

12 Beckemeier-Feuerhahn, 1998, p. 153.
13 Morschett, 2002, pp. 138-139.
14 Keller, Aperia, Georgson, 2008, pp. 99.
15 Aaker D., Management des Markenwerts, Campus, Frankfurt - New
York, 1992, p. 84.

25
passive awareness16. A retail brand may be said to be active and enjoy
spontaneous awareness if it is recalled before starting an acquisition or
establishing the store where to make the purchase. A retail brand may
be considered “top of mind” when the consumer first recalls it from a
short list of brands. It occupies the dominant position in consumers’
mind only if the person cannot name a competitor brand17.
By gathering information regarding the retail brand, a consumer
includes it in its recalled set and will create in his mind a “scheme”
or a “diagram” of the brand, will perceive it accordingly and will
establish in this way his preferences. For the marketing activity, the
relevance of these “schemes” or “diagrams” resides in the fact that in
consumers’ mind the knowledge related to a concept is hierarchically
structured (a brand of an item will be included in a product category; a
retail brand will be included either within a retail format, or in a retail
chain). Memorizing information becomes simpler, as brands “inherit”
the characteristics of that respective category or of the retail chain they
represent. Therefore, even though a brand does not have too many
connections inside the mind of consumers, it will be able to “accede
to” certain associations that came from within the product category
it belongs to. Within this context, awareness may represent the key
for faster activation of the respective scheme, for the improvement of
consumers’ perception of the respective brand or for favourable decision
making (visits, acquisitions). It may be concluded that awareness plays
a direct and essential part in retail brand creation as a concept in the
mind of consumers and in image building. Width of awareness refers
to the individualization, within a product category, of those brands that
represent the benchmark for a certain area, mood or subgroup18.

3. Awareness Measurement
When measuring the two forms of awareness a clear distinction
must be made. When testing brand “recall” (active or unaided aware­

16 Dabija D.C., Pop M.C., Awareness – Indicator for measuring the equity
of a retail brand, in Journal of International Business and Economics
(JIBE), Year 8, Nr. 2, 2008, pp. 54-61.
17 Aaker, 1992, p. 84; Esch, 2007, p. 69.
18 Esch, 2007, p. 71.

26
ness), respondents are required to spontaneously indicate brands
from a certain category. When testing “recognition” (aided or passive
awareness), respondents must recognize a brand, product, packaging
or logo from a given list and be able to integrate it within a category.
To this effect time may or may not be taken into account. Empirical
findings show that thinking time makes it more difficult for consumers
to remember several brands, which may represent a way to select the
brands with dominant and intense awareness. Meanwhile, the brands
sequence, along with correct or incorrect integration of the brand
within a category, may represent important indicators for recall tests19.

4. Research Methodology
For testing the two forms of awareness, a survey based-research
was undertaken. The survey consisted of a questionnaire, administered
by more than one hundred interviewers to about seven thousand
people. Data was collected on three different moments – 2007, 2008
and 2009. First, Romanian consumers were asked, by means of an
open-ended question (meant to measure unaided awareness), to name
the retailers they are able to name spontaneously. Respondents were
allowed to name up to six retailers.
Secondly, by means of a close-ended question necessary to reveal
assisted awareness, respondents had to choose from a list of 15 grocery
retail chains. These were the hypermarkets Auchan, Carrefour, Cora
(Group Louis Delhaize) and Real (Metro Group), supermarkets Billa
(Group REWE) and Profi (Group Louis Delhaize), Cash & Carry stores
Metro (Metro Group) and Selgros (REWE); discounters Kaufland (Lidl/
Schwarz) and Plus (Tengelmann) and several local neighbourhood
stores such as Dya Market, Mega, Oncos, as well as other small stores
combined under the general name of ABC. The classification of retail
formats (hypermarket, supermarket, discount, etc.) has been made
according to the technical literature20.

19 Esch, 2007, pp. 499-501.

20 Liebmann H.P., Zentes J., Swoboda B., Handelsmanagement, Second
Edition Vahlen, München, 2008, pp.394-419; Theiß H.J., Handbuch
Handelsmarketing: Erfolgreiche Strategien und Instrumente im
Handelsmarketing, Second Edition, Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt,
2007, pp. 491-495.

27
 4.1 Unaided Awareness
During all three years of research, over 99% of the respondents
were able to successfully indicate at least two retail stores. Almost
70% of them were able to name six retailers. During the three years
of research, the number of individuals that are able to spontaneously
name six retail brands increase significantly from one year to another
(41% in 2007, 57% in 2008 and 85% in 2009). This situation may be
accounted for by consumers’ increased interest in retailers, their desire
to buy from other (new) retail formats or retail chains, as well as by the
more active media presence of some of the retail brands.
In order to assess unaided awareness, the distribution of respon­
ses on retail formats was undertaken. In 2007, hypermarkets are
represented only by Cora, which gets almost 760 nominations. Besides
Cora, very few consumers have succeeded in indicating other units
such as Auchan, Carrefour, Real or Tesco (20 nominations). At the
moment of data collection these retail chains had the intention of
opening a store within six to nine months in the selected city. The fact
that the respondents had knowledge about them is probably due to
intense advertising on billboards, means of public transportation and
written and spoken media.
A year later, the situation is distinct. Cash & carry stores (1,286 no­
minations) lose their supremacy. Hypermarkets (2,666 nominations)
and supermarkets (2,506 nominations) become the dominant retail
format. After hypermarkets, supermarkets and cash & carry units,
the fourth place in the consumers’ mind is not held, as expected, by
proximity stores but by discount stores (949 nominations on the
whole, versus 687). It is likely that respondents prefer a discount
unit as a result of the latter’s aggressive discounted prices strategy.
However, compared to 2007, a substantial increase is noticeable in the
spontaneous nomination of proximity stores.
In 2009 the situation is completely different. Most nominations
are for the proximity units category (5,193 nominations), followed
by hypermarkets (4,487 nominations) and at a small distance by
supermarkets (4340 nominations). Cash & carry units – Metro and
Selgros – have diminished their awareness, being now situated on
the fifth position (as compared to 2nd place in 2007 and 3rd place in

28
2008). This situation is probably generated by the fact that between
the beginning and the end of our research the number of newly opened
hypermarkets, supermarkets and discounts has had a considerable
increase. On the other hand, it is possible that in 2009 small retailers
may have tried a price and service positioning strategy which has
determined respondents to better remember them. Probably the most
intense “battle” for positioning in the mind of consumers is fought
between super- and hypermarkets, while discount units also intend to
extend their geographic network area and to attract consumers.
Unaided awareness was also analyzed by a ranking of stores (retail
brands) that hold the first five positions on each response possibility.
While in 2007, Metro is the most often nominated retail brand, in
2008 consumers nominate Kaufland and in 2009 the neighbourhood
stores. Metros dominant position in 2007 may be explained by the
fact that this cash & carry stores has been present on the selected
city’s market as early as the beginning of the 2000’s, and in Romania
since 1996. During these years it is more likely that consumers have
not only visited the retailer, but also have encountered positive
experiences here. Metro could have represented for several years a
new and modern benchmark of the other old stores consumers were
acquainted with.
Kaufland gains the first position at nominations in 2008, and in
2009 four times second place and twice the third place. Kaufland is
followed in 2008 three times by Cora, while in 2009 three times by
Real hypermarket. In 2009 Auchan and Real enjoy a considerable
improvement of awareness, Real holding three times the third position.
It seems that Real hypermarket has succeeded, between the two surveys,
in better positioning itself in the minds of respondents compared to its
competitor, Auchan. If in 2008 proximity stores were named at the
end, in 2009 a spectacular come-back of this format becomes obvious.
These small neighbourhood stores are in fact the ones most often
visited, and the fastest to be spontaneously remembered.
Another analysis was conducted in order to stress out more
accurately the position held by all retail stores on the six response
possibilities. Therefore the absolute number of nominations was
weighted with the importance score. For stores indicated on the first
place the coefficient is six, then five for those on the second position, and

29
so on until one for those on the last place21. By summing up the scores
obtained on the six response alternatives it results the corresponding
score for each retail store. The results confirm the preponderance of
respondents’ preferences in 2007 for Metro with a score of 3,301 points.
Surprisingly, this is closely followed by the only existing hypermarket
at the moment of data collection, Cora (with a score of 3,260 points). It
is considered that present situation confirms the impact of consumers’
experience with a new retail brand that succeeds in creating emotions
and in precisely positioning in consumers’ minds. As a result of this
situation customers retain that brand and give it priority in their
mental hierarchy. It is followed, in descending order, by Kaufland,
Billa, Selgros, Profi, Plus and Oncos.
Surprisingly, for 2007 the last position is not held by a food
store, although the question referred strictly to this category, but …
by a shopping centre. Iulius Mall was about to open within less than
six months from the moment of data collection. Nevertheless, it had
already had a strong media presence. Its nomination leads to the
conclusion that since in 2007 Romanian consumers were not able
to clearly differentiate a shopping centre from a store, it was even
more difficult for them to distinguish among various retail formats.
Following this result it is obvious why consumers do not see price as
discounters’ core element of the differentiation strategy. Probably their
longer experience with them will help them perceive more accurately
the strategies used by retailers in positioning their retail brands on the
market.
In 2008 the number of competitors has increased. Even though
only a few months have passed between the launch of the three
hypermarkets – Auchan, Carrefour and Real and the period of data
collection, these units were already familiar to consumers. It is believed
that, thanks to their media presence and to Romanian consumers’
curiosity to explore everything new, these hypermarkets impressed
themselves on respondents’ minds.
However, Metro still remains a dominant retail brand, a possible
benchmark in consumers’ perception, against which all other retailers
are being compared. Kaufland’s aggressive strategy is once again

21 Dabija, Pop, 2008, pp. 54-61.

30
revealed by this ranking, as the supermarket become in 2008 the
awareness leader. Proximity stores succeeded in better positioning in
consumers’ perception, obtaining a higher weighted score.
In 2009, the first place belongs to proximity stores that overall are
most often named by respondents. This situation could be explained
by the decrease of consumers’ acquisitions budget, and an increased
attention paid to price. Basically, because of job losses and wage
reductions, consumers face the situation to reduce frequency of
important acquisitions and to spend less money per shopping visit.
Probably for these purchases they prefer small neighbourhood stores.
Kaufland obtains a second position in the classification with a pretty
high score. This may be the result of price strategy and continuous
sales promotions that are adequately communicated by the store
(“If you find the same product at a lower price we reimburse twice
the difference”). By the time the three moments of research were
concluded, Kaufland chain had succeeded in increasing the number
of its branches. What is interesting is the fact that the third place on
the awareness weighted scale belongs to another supermarket (Billa)
and not a hypermarket. A possible explanation in this respect would
be the fact that consumers try to orientate in 2009 towards shopping
locations close to their homes and are not willing anymore to spend
time and money with transportation to hypermarkets usually located
on the periphery of urban centres and neighbourhoods. Metro (6th
place) and Selgros (12th place), together with Cora (7th place) could
be considered the major losers of awareness. In the case of the two
cash & carry units this situation can be attributed to the fact that their
clientele consists mainly of resellers and organisational consumers.
However, this decrease in Cora’s awareness is surprising. It is most
likely that consumers have realized that its supply is very similar to
that of other retail brands. The relatively good positioning of Auchan
may be owed to its placement within a shopping centre (Iulius Mall).
Real obtains a better positioning as compared to the previous year, so
that in 2009 it is placed on the fourth position. This fact may be caused
both by intense communication of Metro Group for Real brand, and by
the free public transportation line towards this hypermarket. And last
but not least, the relative isolation from other retail brands could be a
reason for a clear positioning in the minds of consumers.

31
 What seems to be very interesting is the presence in this classi­
fication of the local supermarket chain Oncos, whose number of
nominations is very close to that of Carrefour hypermarket. It is very
likely that this type of units (small supermarkets) has understood, as
has neighbourhood stores, that they should focus more on consumers
that live or work in its stores’ immediate vicinity and that they should
try to satisfy as best as possible the needs of their consumers.

4.2 Aided Awareness Measure Based on a Predefined List

When confronted with a predefined list of retail stores, consumers
were able to recognize more easily the units where they went shopping.
In 2007 Metro was the retailer that scored the most aided nominations
(959), followed by Billa (953) and Kaufland (939). In the second
research year Kaufland was the leader (1,749), followed by Metro with
1,792 aided nominations and Billa (1,653). Based on the results we
can argue that Kaufland became in 2008 the benchmark store used by
consumers to compare other retailers.
The situation of the chart on retail formats also undergoes impor­
tant changes from one year to another. It is obvious that the larger
number of hypermarkets present in 2008 in Cluj-Napoca causes them
to become leaders, followed at a fairly large distance by supermarkets.
Cash & carry units obtain a fourth position after discount stores. A
complete comparison of results would only have been possible if all
retail units had been present on the market at each of the research
moments. However, it must be stated that data interpretation is correct
and highlights, especially for supermarkets, the impact of their media
presence (2007) versus that of their physical presence (2008).

4.3 Aided Awareness Measure on Seven Stage Likert Scale

For measuring aided awareness in 2009 a seven steps Likert-
type scale was used. On this, respondents had to indicate the degree
to which the store they had visited “is a well known brand”. For the
operationalization of this statement Keller’s model had been taken
into account. Similar statements were also made for the other elements
outlined within the model22.

22 Keller, 1993, pp. 1-22.

32
 On average (5.49), respondents recognize that the store they
purchases from on a regular basis is a well known brand to them.
Regarding the best known retail formats, consumer recall on average
firstly the cash & carry stores (5.97), followed by hypermarkets
(5.92). Even though these results seem to contrast with those found
for unaided awareness, we appreciate that they can still be properly
interpreted. Respondents may easily remember the name of a certain
store belonging to a retail format, but this does not necessary imply
the existence of positive opinions towards the brand under which it
operates. The two cash & carry stores may be regarded as brands that
are deeply rooted in consumers’ minds. When respondents have more
time to assess their characteristics, the perception of cash & carry
stores is better revealed. According to the results, hypermarkets also
succeeded to be regarded as strong brands by consumers.
Respondents regard neighbourhood stores (4.67) as less strong
brands, even if they easily remember their names. Towards discounters
and supermarkets, consumers reveal a relatively close perception
(5.63, 5.68 respectively). This could indicate that the two retail formats
did not yet manage to position themselves properly as strong brands
in consumers’ minds. It seems very likely that consumers are not able
to make a clear distinction between discounters and neighbourhood
stores.
Breakdown of responses on retail stores confirms the fact that
Metro enjoys the highest average aided awareness (6.18). The cash &
carry unit is followed by Carrefour (6.13), Auchan (6.00), Real (5.95)
and Cora (5.87). Surprisingly, the discounters Penny (6.00) and Plus
(5.92) also enjoys a quite significant average reputation. This could be
due to the fact that Penny pursues a strategy of territorial expansion,
trying to develop new branches especially in smaller towns. For
consumers of such places, discounters may represent the “modern”
and more comfortable alternative for the traditional and old village
shop. Therefore they may regard a small discount store as a very
“big” and interesting purchase location. By doing so, Penny and Plus
are able to position themselves in consumers psyche as well-known,
strong brands.
Certainly, the two discounters have also opened branches in
district centres of large cities. Here, consumers not having other retail

33
formats such as hypermarkets or supermarkets have also impressed
their image in the minds. Neighbourhood stores (4.47) together with
Profi (5.07) are less known and enjoy a much reduced aided awareness,
which is similar to the chain of small supermarkets Oncos (5, 16).

5. Conclusions
In order to be able to compare the data more accurately, it is
advisable to compute an awareness index23. Thus, it could be defined
as a ratio between spontaneous retail brand awareness, (regardless
of the position it is mentioned on) and the assisted one of the same
brand. In this way, a value of the index close to one (it is expected that
the generic values of the index to be subunit) would give a pertinent
and realistic image of the retail brand level of awareness. Also, the
index would allow for a relatively correct classification of units, based
on their awareness, attenuating: the impact of retailer’s age on the
market, the impact of time in that location, differences in interior
layout or the assortment diversity.
The collected data allows us to conclude that European retail units
have been relatively easily accepted by Romanian consumers, gaining
not only their confidence, loyalty and trust, but also their awareness.
In future studies it will be more interesting to discover how consumers’
perception will vary as competition within the retail market will
increase and other strong retailers will enter the Romanian market.

Acknowledgment
This paper has been co-financed from the European Social Fund,
through the 2007-2013 Human Resources Development Operational
Sector Program Project number POSDRU/1.5/S59184 “Performance
and excellence in the post-doctoral research within the economic field
in Romania”.

References
1. Aaker D., Brand Portofolio Strategy – Creating Relevance,
Differentiation, Energy, Leverage and Clarity, New York, 2004.

23 Dabija, Pop, 2008, pp. 54-61.

34
2. Aaker D., Management des Markenwerts, Campus, Frankfurt - New
York, 1992, p.31.
3. Aaker D., Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,
in California Management Review, Year 3, No. 3, 1996, pp.102-120.
4. Baker J., Parasuraman A., Grewal D., Voss G.B., The Influence of
Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value
and Patronage Intentions, in Journal of Marketing, Year 66, 2002,
pp.120-141.
5. Beckemeier-Feuerhahn S., Marktorientierte Markenbewertung,
DUV, Frankfurt, 1998, p.70.
6. Chowdhury J., Reardon J., Srivastava R., Alternative Modes of
Measuring Store Image: An Empirical Assessment of Structured
Versus Unstructured Measures, in Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Year 6, Nr. 2, 1998, pp.72-86.
7. Dabija D.C., Pop M.C., Awareness – Indicator for measuring the
equity of a retail brand, in Journal of International Business and
Economics (JIBE), Year 8, Nr. 2, 2008, pp.54-61.
8. del Rio B., Vasquez R., Iglesias V., The effects of brand associations
on consumer response, in Journal of Consumer Marketing, Year 18,
No. 5, 2001, pp. 410-425.
9. Esch F.R., Geus P., Langner T., Brand performance Measurement
zur wirksamen Markennavigation, in Controlling, Year 14, Nr. 8/9,
2002, pp.39-47.
10. Esch F.R., Strategie und Technik der Markenführung, Fifth Edition,
Vahlen, München, 2007.
11. Franzen O., Trommsdorf V., Riedel F., Ansätze der Markenbewertung
und Markenbilanz, in Bruhn M., Handbuch Marke, Volume 2,
Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, 1994, pp.1373-1401.
12. Keller K.L., Aperia T., Georgson M., Strategic Brand Management, A
European Edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, 2008, pp.49-62.
13. Keller K.L., Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer
based brand equity, in Journal of Marketing, Year 57, Nr. 1, 1993,
pp.1-22.
14. Lassar W., Mittal B., Sharma A., Measuring customer – based
brand equity, in Journal of Consumer Marketing, Year 12, No. 4,
1995, pp.11-19.
15. Léo P.Y., Philippe J., Retail Centres: Location and Consumer’s
Satisfaction, in Service Industries Journal, Year 22, No. 1, 2002, pp.
122-146.
16. Liebmann H.P., Zentes J., Swoboda B., Handelsmanagement,
Second Edition, Vahlen, München, 2008, pp. 394-419.

35
17. Morschett D., Retail Branding und Integriertes Handelsmarketing,
Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2002, p.56.
18. Sirdeshmkh D., Singh J., Sabol B., Consumer Trust, Value, and
Loyalty in Relational Exchanges, in Journal of Marketing, Year 66,
2002, pp.15-37.
19. Theiß H.J., Handbuch Handelsmarketing: Erfolgreiche Strategien
und Instrumente im Handelsmarketing, Ediţia a doua, Deutscher
Fachverlag, Frankfurt, 2007, pp. 491-495.

36