The influence of brands and images on the financial performance - An empirical investigation of the EuroStoxx 50

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I. Intangible assets
1 Definition, facts and problems of intangibles
1.1 Definition of intangible assets
1.2 Facts, problems and chances of intangibles
2 Definition and accounting of brand values
2.1 Definition of brand value
2.2 Accounting abilities of brand values
2.2.1 Accounting according to IFRS
2.2.2 Accounting according to US-GAAP
2.2.3 Conclusion and outlook
3 Brand valuation methodologies
3.1 Interbrand
3.2 BBDO
3.3 Chances and limitations of the approach by BBDO
4 Existing empirical evidence
4.1 Investigation on the basis of non-financial factors
4.2 Market-to-book (MB) ratio as indicator
4.3 Analysis by the Interbrand list
4.4 Study based on different influence factors

Part II. Investigation of the relationship between brand value and financial performance
1 Empirical analysis
1.1 Goal of the present empirical investigation
1.2 Methodology and Data
1.3 Development of the brand value
1.4 Performance measurement without systematic risk
1.5 The Model
2 Results
2.1 Portfolio
2.2 Portfolio
2.3 Portfolio
2.4 Portfolio
2.5 Portfolio
3 Summary and interpretation of the results
4 Information criteria
5 Statistical tests
5.1 T-test
5.2 Tests for heteroskedasticity
5.2.1 White test
5.2.2 Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH)
5.3 Tests for autocorrelation

Conclusion

Appendix X

Bibliography XXIII

Table of abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table of figures

Figure 1: Performance comparison of all portfolios inclusive of the benchmark

List of tables

Table 1: EViews output of portfolio

Table 2: EViews output of portfolio

Table 3: Eviews output of portfolio

Table 4: EViews output of portfolio

Table 5: EViews output of portfolio

Table 6: Summary of the results with the t-statistic value in parentheses

Data carrier index

The enclosed compact disc includes the following file folders:

- Brand Cap Ratio

- Brand Value

- Chart of PF1-PF5

- DataStream Raw Data

- EuroStoxx50

- Internet Sources

- Portfolio 1

- Portfolio 2

- Portfolio 3

- Portfolio 4

- Portfolio 5

- Portfolio 6

Index of appendices

Appendix 1: Diagram of the influencing factors on the BBDO brand value ..

Appendix 2: Brand valuation methodology for non-high-tech companies

Appendix 3: Brand/Cap ratio for the EuroStoxx 50 companies

Appendix 4: Brand value 2004 in million

Appendix 5: Brand value 2005 in million

Appendix 6: Brand value 2006 in million

Appendix 7: 3 year mean brand value in million € of portfolio

Appendix 8: 3 year mean brand value in million € of portfolio

Appendix 9: 3 year mean brand value in million € of portfolio

Appendix 10: 3 year mean brand value in million € of portfolio

Appendix 11: 3 year mean brand value in million € of portfolio

Appendix 12: EViews output of portfolio

Appendix 13: Normality test of Portfolio

Appendix 14: Normality test of Portfolio

Appendix 15: Normality test of Portfolio

Appendix 16: Normality test of Portfolio

Appendix 17: Normality test of Portfolio

Appendix 18: t-test for the alpha estimators together with their corresponding critical values

Appendix 19: t-test for the beta estimators together with their corresponding critical values

Appendix 20: White test for portfolio

Appendix 21: White test for portfolio

Appendix 22: White test for portfolio

Appendix 23: White test for portfolio

Appendix 24: White test for portfolio

Appendix 25: ARCH LM-test for portfolio

Appendix 26: ARCH LM-test for portfolio

Appendix 27: ARCH LM-test for portfoli

Appendix 28: ARCH LM-test for portfolio

Appendix 29: ARCH LM-test for portfolio

Appendix 30: Durbin-Watson values and their corresponding upper bounds

Appendix 31: Breusch-Godfrey test (3 lags) for Portfolio

Appendix 32: Breusch-Godfrey test (3 lags) for Portfolio

Appendix 33: Breusch-Godfrey test (3 lags) for Portfolio

Appendix 34: Breusch-Godfrey test (3 lags) for Portfolio

Appendix 35: Breusch-Godfrey test (3 lags) for Portfolio

Introduction

There are many consultancies, for example, Interbrand, Brand Finance or Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn (BBDO) that create annual lists of companies ranked by their brand value. Over the years, these popular rankings have become more and more relevant to companies because they are of the opinion that they can thereby increase their degree of popularity. Therefore, an interesting question arises: Is there any connection between the company’s brand value and its financial performance?

The list of the one hundred most valued brands published by Interbrand, probably the most famous global branding consultancy of the world, has made its contribution to the increased popularity of brand value, not only in the United States but meanwhile also in Europe. If you peruse the best global brands 2006 list attentively, you will observe that nearly half of the companies, exactly 49%, are non-US companies, compared to only 37% in the year 2001.¹ 37 of the 100 companies are from Europe, with Nokia as the most valuable European brand ranked as number six. Moreover, nine companies are based in Germany, sorted by brand value: Mercedes, BMW, SAP, Siemens, Volkswagen, adidas, Audi, Porsche, and Nivea.²

Further evidence for the raised acceptance and attractiveness of intangible assets, brand value included, provides the fact that since the early 1980s the share of intangible assets of concerns has increased from an average of 40% in their brand value to over 80% by the end of the 1990s. As a result, only about 20% of a company’s brand value will be recorded by the accounting system. Thus, it is difficult for the companies to explain this overvalue to the shareholders.³

Accordingly, the question, introduced at the beginning of this paper, appears in a very interesting light, particularly if a company’s greater brand value indeed generates a better financial performance compared to companies that are not valued by any global brand consultancy. (In this context, it should be mentioned that better performance means the developing of the share price.)

The first part of this paper deals with intangible assets in general; the term “intangible asset” is defined and problems with the valuation of intangible assets are elucidated. Furthermore, the expression “brand value” is delineated. In the following, some brand valuation methods are presented. The first part concludes with the description of the results of other empirical studies about the connection between brand value and stock performance.

The second part of the working paper examines the relationship between brand value and stock performance of the EuroStoxx 50 companies. First, the empirical analysis is described, followed by the presentation of the results of the investigation. These results are then summarised and interpreted. The information criteria will be explained hereafter. Finally yet importantly, the statistical tests based on the results of the study are summed up.

Part I. Intangible assets

1 Definition, facts and problems of intangibles

1.1 Definition of intangible assets

In general, intangible assets are immaterial assets of a company although, up to now, no standard definition of “Intangible Assets” has been developed in literature. Consequently, another attribute of intangible assets is that they are difficult to measure in practice and are thus mostly undervalued.

The International Accounting Standards (IAS) define an intangible asset, occasionally named intellectual capital or knowledge asset,⁴ as a nonmonetary asset that is not physical in nature. In addition, intangible assets must be identifiable and manageable as well as they must generate future advantages in terms of earnings or lowered expenditures.⁵ Examples of intangible assets are patents, software, licences, trademarks, copyrights, customer relationships, know-how, brands, etc.

1.2 Facts, problems and chances of intangibles

Intangible assets have experienced a great boom since the beginning of the 1980s, accompanying a significant change in the composition of the companies’ value. An investigation of firms that are listed in the accepted American market index Standard&Poor’s 500 showed that the intangibles’ average proportion of the market value increased from 38% to 62% between the years 1982 and 1992, whereas the proportion of the book value decreased from 62% to 38% during the same period.⁶ Another, more current research report demonstrated that in the year 2000 the US private gross investment in intangible assets was at a minimum of one trillion US dollars, nearly the same investment amount as in tangible assets.⁷

However, this amazing increase of intangible assets also entails some problems. The first one is, as mentioned in paragraph 1.1, that it is very difficult to evaluate intangibles and to predict their future cash flow. Therefore, it might be risky for an enterprise to possess many intangible assets because it is not possible to estimate their future benefits in an exact way. Empirical investigations have shown that investors tend to undervalue firms that own many intangible assets on principle. A further problem of intangible assets is that they cannot be traded on official markets, like many of the corporal and most of the financial assets. Fragmentary proprietorial rights and considerable information asymmetries between consumer and seller cause the “nontradeability” of intangible assets. And this is one of the main reasons why intangibles do not appear on the corporate balance sheet.

The spectacular and famous fraudulent bankruptcy of Enron in the year 2001, at that time one of the largest energy companies of the United States, illustrates the vulnerability and facileness of intangible assets. The difference between Enron’s market value and book value amounted to 64 billion US dollars on December 21, 2000. Usually, this great discrepancy between market and book value is an expression for a large possession of intangibles, and therefore for a great growth potential for a concern like Enron. But one year later, Enron’s stocks were subject to a trading halt and all its supposed intangible assets had vanished. This disaster of Enron is again evidence for the exigency to handle intangibles with great care because of their missing transparency and their measurement difficulties.⁸

Nonetheless, the increasing importance of intangibles is unstoppable. One reason for this development is - in short - competition. The fierce rivalry among companies of the same line of business forces them to constantly innovate and introduce new products but lower their costs at the same time. All of these required measures may be realised by investing in intangibles, i.e. investing in innovation, quality, customers, management, joint ventures, technology, trademarks/brands, and employees.⁹ As a secondary effect, enterprises thereby raise their brand value.

Another explanation for the great significance of intangible assets since the end of the 20th century is their commoditisation. With equal access to tangible assets for all competitors, it is impossible for firms to achieve irregular and above-average earnings. Only the unique intangible assets generate permanent high benefits and shareholder values, enabling firms to resist the competitive market and cost pressure.¹⁰

2 Definition and accounting of brand values

2.1 Definition of brand value

First and foremost, brand (alternatively brand value) belongs to the group of intangible assets and does therefore per se not produce any profit. Brand represents the most important assets of a company like its corporate name, symbols, slogan, established clientele, trademarks, and patents.¹¹ In literature, different definitions of the term brand value have been published. However, many of these definitions are not precise enough and no common agreement has been achieved up to now.

One definition states that the brand value is a combination of a variety of brand assets and creditors that are connected to a brand, its name as well as icon and establish or in some cases decrease the value of a company.¹² Another explanation says that the brand value is the added value of a functional product or service caused by the brand name.¹³ A further exemplary characterisation claims that the brand value is the result of the past marketing measures linked to a brand and expressed by residual assets.¹⁴

2.2 Accounting abilities of brand values

The rising significance of brands, in particular brand value, in the last two decades, has caused two further questions: First, are there any possibilities of entering these intangibles in the balance sheet? Second, what are the differences between Europe and the United States?

2.2.1 Accounting according to IFRS

The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) become more and more important for European companies. For example, 23 of the 30 DAX companies draw up their annual accounts according to the IFRS.¹⁵ Therefore, it is interesting to see in what way the IFRS handles the accounting problems connected with brands and brand values.

The goal of the IFRS’ accounting rules is to represent a true and fair view as well as presentation of the companies’ financial and earnings position. The relevant paragraph for the accounting abilities of intangible assets is the IAS 38. According to this paragraph, brands and brand values fulfil the criteria for being an intangible asset because they are intangible, identifiable and manageable; they further have a non-monetary character and account for financial success in the past as well as generate economic benefit in the future.

It is indeed possible to report brands that were acquired against payment, the so-called derivative brands, but self-developed brands, the so-called original brands, are not identifiable in an exact way and therefore they cannot be entered in the balance sheet. Moreover, the IFRS prohibits the capitalising of expenditures for creating original brands and other expenditures for marketing and publicity.¹⁶

2.2.2 Accounting according to US-GAAP

The accounting rules of the US General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are much more flexible compared to other accounting systems, like the German Commercial Code that appears to be very static. According to the US-GAAP, brands belong to intangible assets and therefore it is possible to balance them.¹⁷

Furthermore, the US-GAAP accounting rules state that derivative brands have to be valuated separately and included in the balance sheet. The passage of the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 141 from June 30, 2001 allows the companies’ consolidated accounts to break down the goodwill into tangible and intangible assets, thus estimating the brand value individually and displaying it in the balance sheet, even with regard to original brands. Since January 1, 2003, all foreign listed companies, like Allianz or E.ON, have to balance their assets according to the new rules of the US- stock exchanges.¹⁸

In conclusion, the biggest advantage of the US-GAAP accounting rules is the latitude of judgement which enables concerns to identify intangibles independently and thereby decreases the problem of the valuation’s objectivity.¹⁹

2.2.3 Conclusion and outlook

The progressive internationalisation and globalisation requires a flexible and standardised accounting method. The current international financial accounting systems are not able to satisfy this trend and rather represent a conservative accounting strategy in terms of the principles of caution and creditor protection. In addition, many listed companies increasingly balance their income and expenses according to international accounting standards, like the US-GAAP, using the possibility of also balancing intangibles.

The raised competitive advantage by balancing brand values would be one benefit for companies. Thereby it would be possible to compare concerns with derivative and original brands far better. Furthermore, the consideration of intangibles on the balance sheet would strengthen the balance and prompt the companies to invest more money in the development of their brands.²⁰ The balance would also give a more realistic picture of the firm. Thus, the balance would be more orientated towards the capital market and particularly towards investors.

However, the different methods of brand valuation and their reliability are the main problems of including intangibles, i.e. brand values, in the balance sheet. A further point of criticism is the lack of credibility of brand value estimations done by consulting firms that a company due for valuation had ordered.²¹ In the end, the balancing of intangibles will become widely accepted because of their increasing significance and importance in the operational practice. In order to satisfy this inexorable development, an internationally standardised and recognised accounting system must be installed.

3 Brand valuation methodologies

Up to now, there are about 500 brand valuation models developed by different consulting firms in order to calculate the brand equity of a company. This oversupply of brand valuation methodologies has the effect that, for example, the brand value of Coca-Cola varies between 0.2 and 64 billion US dollars.²² This interesting figure demonstrates that every method uses different approaches and neither can claim to be the “perfect” brand valuation method.

3.1 Interbrand

One brand valuation method is the approach by Interbrand, probably the most famous brand consultancy. The technique of Interbrand uses three essential analytic steps:

The first one is a financial analysis to obtain the economic added value of a company’s brand. The second step contains an analysis of demand that allows calculating the share of the brand at the economic added value. Thereby the added value chain of the brand will be analysed and the result represents the significance of the brand or the Role of Brand Index. Sales through brand involve market risks and therefore have to be discounted with an interest rate. The discount rate will be defined by the specific brand risk and determined by the brand strength analysis. Moreover, it provides the Brand Strength Score, which is step number three; afterwards the brand value can be computed.²³

3.2 BBDO

Another methodology is the Brand Equity Evaluations System (BEES) established by the German consulting firm BBDO, with headquarters in Dusseldorf, in the year 2000. This approach is interesting and relevant in this respect that BBDO annually calculates the brand value of all the EuroStoxx 50 (a European share index that is one of Europe’s leading market indicators) companies that are the subject matter of the empirical investigation following in the second part of this paper.

BEES employs nine factors to determine the brand value. These factors comprise not only the financial measurements but also the data that directly affect the brand. The nine stages of the BBDO factor model are as follows²⁴:

- Factor 1: The sales development potential of the brand, acts as an indicator for the future trend of the sales, whereas the factor values are evaluated in an interdisciplinary.
- Factor 2: The sales profitability, represents the sources from the last three years, which are incorporated into the valuation process. With the help of this variable, the recoverability of the sales can be determined, which is also valued intersectorally
- Factor 3: Analyst reports on the future of the industrial sector mark the development perspective of the brand
- Factor 4: The performed sales, which were achieved abroad, are expressed by the international orientation of the brand. This indicator is a proxy for the brand’s global capability of development and is again evaluated intersectorally.
- Factor 5: The promotional support for the brand results from the advertising budget that was spent for the last campaign, and expresses to what extent the company promotes the brand on the market. The estimation takes place within the company’s branch and uses the percentage share of the “adjusted Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT)” of advertising expenditures.
- Factor 6: The strength of the brand within its own industry, is applied to the levels of sales comparative to direct rival businesses, at which the brand’s dominance potential inside the relevant market is characterised by this variable. The indicator is valued within the company’s branch, comparing the sales of the brand to be estimated to the sales of the branch’s market leader.
- Factor 7: The image of the brand embodies the attractiveness of the brand from the stakeholders’ perspective; this factor is also valuated intersectorally.
- Factor 8: The expert judgement brand value, which is an interbranch figure, reflects the brand’s economic valuation in professional circles, using the opinion of experienced experts.
- Factor 9: The adjusted EBIT signifying the value potential of the brand.

The precise procedure of the valuation method is characterised by its multilevel structure. Firstly, the factors trading volume, sales profitability and trend perspectives are aggregated with the new factor brand quality, adding the indicators international orientation, promotional support, strength in its own industry and image to create an overall factor. The diverse factors of the bottom level, their respective weighted relevance included, have their share both in the valuation of the comprehensive indicator brand quality and in the determining of the overall factor value. The calculated overall factor value is interpreted in terms of a weighting factor for the remaining basis factor adjusted EBIT. In the same way, the brand value’s expert judgement is incorporated in the valuation as a weighting factor. The final step contains the calculation of the brand’s actual monetary value with the help of these three variables. For this, the two weighting factors are merged with the adjusted EBIT’s weighted average of the last three years in such a manner that the monetary brand value results from the product of these three variables. With reference to the adjusted EBIT, constituting the fundament of the monetary brand value’s calculation, it is necessary to note some specifics: Meanwhile, this variable has obtained the status of an international standard.

Besides, discretionary financial accounting and finance effects are removed from the corporate profit. In addition, the evaluation of the brand value is free from external, temporarily arising special items. Moreover, to guarantee a more homogeneous financial assessment base, the EBIT results of the last three years are included for non - high technology companies.

The dissimilarity of the significance of the profits, which were achieved at different periods, is taken into account by integrating recent profits with a higher weighting factor, compared to profits that were realised further in the past. High technology concerns, like Infineon and Nokia, need a special approach because of their, in part, extremely cyclical development. Firms of this sector are subject to cycles that last longer than three years. This problem has been solved by expanding the observation period to five years and supplementary all periods are weighted equally. (Appendix 2 illustrates the valuation method for non high technology companies.)

3.3 Chances and limitations of the BBDO approach

BEES offers a number of advantages compared to other brand valuation methods. Firstly, it must be emphasised that the BBDO valuation technique is characterised by a branch differentiating procedure. This is an important aspect because an interbranch procedure leads to significant irregularities and therefore the results are not directly comparable. Accordingly, ignoring this feature would lead to an extensive contortion. In addition, the BBDO valuation system is flexible and at the same time extendable. Hence, it is possible to determine brands and make them comparable by matching or rather integrating relevant key figures.

The implementation of future-orientated variables that signify the development potential and the growth perspective of the brand is another plus of this method. Moreover, the facile availability and accessibility of the required data makes a quick, effective and thus cost-saving estimation of the brand possible. Likewise, BEES eliminates parameters that are not supposed to have any influence on the estimated brand value as these escape the direct and indirect control of brand steering bodies. This fact is supported by using the adjusted EBIT instead of the after-tax profit, employed by Interbrand, for example. By doing so, discretionary balance and finance effects on the corporate profit are removed as well as the occurrence of exogenous, temporary special effects. Although the BBDO methodology presents many advantages, it is not able to compensate for the deficiencies of other brand value methods entirely.

One reason for this is the impossibility of creating a generally accepted and objective valuation system. In fact, a brand valuation method has the task of avoiding well-known mistakes and of preventing probable sources of error in order to gain a broadly based recognition. These conditions are widely satisfied by BEES, admitting only the slightest possible subjective influence within the choice as well as the weighting of the factors and resigning further subjective disturbance variables. Publicity expenses, as a determinant of the brand value, are also taken into account. Altogether, this fact can be interpreted as a weak point because the valuation method is input orientated, although the brand value results from the output. Yet, this procedure is qualified and consequently there is a relationship between the promotional support and the brand value.²⁵

4 Existing empirical evidence

There are several scientific research papers and analyses of the relationship between the brand value, or its characteristic marketing attributes, and the financial performance. However, all these investigations mainly represent the US market and empirical results for European companies are rare.

4.1 Investigation on the basis of non-financial factors

One interesting working paper was published by Frank H. M. Verbeeten and Pieter Vijn, both assistant professors at Dutch universities. In their study, they examine the coherence between brand equity measures, representing the companies’ non-financial components of the brand equity value, and their financial performance. They received the data set for the brand equity measures by using the BrandAsset™ Valuator established by Young &

Rubicam, one of the world’s leading marketing communications companies. The BrandAsset™ Valuator is one of the most extensive surveys on branding conducted worldwide. It determines brand values, in particular the power and health of a brand, on the basis of four central measures. These four measures, called pillars, were obtained from the consumers’ brand notice and jointly reflect the improvement of a brand’s growth. The first one is Differentiation, which measures the extent of a brand’s delimitations against each other. The second one is Relevance, which covers the extent of a brand’s allurement. The third pillar, Esteem, includes how much the brand is favoured by the consumers. The last pillar, Knowledge, measures the customers’ familiarity and relationship with the brand. The investigation by Verbeeten and Vijn comprised only Dutch companies that have a mono- brand structure. These mono-brand firms receive results from a single brand that stands for the lion’s share of the business activities. As a result, firms like Heineken were excluded from the study because more than 50% of their sales are gained outside of the Netherlands. Return on Investment (ROI), Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI) and Return on Sales (ROS) served as specific financial performance measures.

The results show that the coherence between brand equity measures and financial performance is positive in general, sometimes even statistically significant. Thus, Differentiation is positive and correlates significantly with financial performance. Relevance is also positively related to ROS. However, these results demonstrate at the same time that the brand equity measures possess the ability to predict the future financial performance. For instance, an increase of 10 points in Brand Differentiation results in a rise of 0.5% in the future ROI and of 1.2% in the CFROI as well as of 0.4% in the future ROS. Besides, Relevance and Esteem also have a positive and statistically significant impact on the future financial performance.

Yet, the examination of the relationship between brand equity measures and future financial performance also elucidates that traditional accounting measures outperform the brand equity measures as an interpreter of future financial performance.²⁶

4.2 Market-to-book (MB) ratio as indicator

Another informative paper was issued by Roger A. Kerin and Raj Sethuraman, both teaching professors at Cox School of Business in Dallas (United States), in the year 1998. This study examines the connection between brand value and shareholder value for consumer goods firms in the United States, using the Market-to-Book (MB) ratio, i.e. the market value of a firm divided by its book equity, as financial measurement. In their central hypothesis, Kerin and Sethuraman state that well-established, popular and prosperous trade names outperform their unbranded counterparts and that firms with higher brand value should exhibit greater MB ratios.

To investigate the relationship between brand equity and shareholder value, Kerin and Sethuraman used the estimated brand values published by Interbrand in the years 1995 and 1996. A distinctly positive and statistically significant correlation between brand value and shareholder value was proven by the results of the empirical analysis. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the relationship between brand value and shareholder value shows a concave form with declining economies of scale, signifying a non-linear type of association.²⁷

4.3 Analysis by the Interbrand list

A further empirical study, also using brand value estimates of Interbrand, was composed by Mary E. Barth et al. in the year 1998. In this survey, whose sample contains 1.204 brand value estimates collected from 1991 to 1996, they tested two hypotheses with the help of a regression model.

[...]

---

¹ Cp. Interbrand (2001).

² Cp. Interbrand (2006).

³ Cp. Daum, Jürgen H. (2002).

⁴ Cp. Lev, B. (2005), p. 299.

⁵ Cp. IAS Plus (2004).

⁶ Cp. Lev, B./Daum, J.(2003), p. 1.

⁷ Cp. Nakamura, L. I. (2001), p. 2.

⁸ Cp. Lev, B. (2002).

⁹ Cp. Stoi, R. (2003), p. 15.

¹⁰ Cp. Lev, B. (2005).

¹¹ Cp. Aaker, D. A. (1991).

¹² Cp. Aaker, D. A. (1991).

¹³ Cp. Aaker, D. A/Brel, A. C. (1993).

¹⁴ Cp. Rangaswamy et al. (1993).

¹⁵ Cp. IFRS/IAS Portal (2006).

¹⁶ Cp. Nickel, W. (2006), p. 70-77.

¹⁷ Cp. Nickel. R. W. (2006), p. 61.

¹⁸ Cp. BBDO (2002), p. 15-16.

¹⁹ Cp. Nickel. R. W. (2006), p. 65-66.

²⁰ Cp. BBDO (2002), p. 15-16.

²¹ Cp. Nickel. R. W. (2006), p. 89-91.

²² Cp. Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S. (1998), p. 62.

²³ Cp. Interbrand Zintzmeyer & Lux (2005).

²⁴ See appendix 1 for an illustration of the BBDO factor model.

²⁵ Cp. Göttgens, O. et al. (2003).

²⁶ Cp. Verbeeten, F./Vijn, P.(2006), p. 14-27.

²⁷ Cp. Kerin, R./Sethuraman, R (1998).