Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods

(1)

Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining

DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods

Yung-Lan Wang

a

_{, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng}

b,c,⇑ a

Department of Business and Entrepreneurial Management, Kainan University, No. 1, Kainan Road, Luchu, Taoyuan County 338, Taiwan b

Kainan University, No. 1, Kainan Road, Luchu, Taoyuan County 338, Taiwan c

Institute of Management of Technology, National Chiao-Tung University, No. 1001, Ta-Hsueh Road, Hsin-Chu 300, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Brand marketing Brand value

MCDM (multiple criteria decision making) DEMATEL (decision making trial and evaluation laboratory)

ANP (analytic network process) VIKOR

a b s t r a c t

When consumers purchase products, they will consider the brand ﬁrst, because it indirectly leads con-sumers to associate the products with the quality, functions, and the design. Based on the smiling curve, it showed enhancing the marketing or R&D will create value-added to the products or brands. Thus, this study intended to use brand marketing to create brand value. However, there are many criteria among the strategies, and they are interrelated. Therefore, this study utilized the MCDM model combining DEM-ATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods to clarify the interrelated relationships of brand marketing and ﬁnd the problems or gaps; then, evaluated the situation to reduce the gaps in order to achieve the aspired lev-els and rank the priorities in brand marketing strategies, we also evaluated the customer’s satisfaction of brand marketing by three electronic manufacturing companies in Taiwan. As the empirical results, value pricing is the most important factor, followed by consumer’s price perception and perceived quality while showed the highest satisfaction of brand marketing was in F2 company. The results of this paper will pro-vide the enterprises with a reference for planning brand marketing.

1. Introduction

In consumer marketing, brands often provide the primary points of differentiation between competitive offerings, and as such they can be critical to the success of companies (Wood, 2000). For consumers, brands can be used to identify the sources or manufacturers while let manufacturers or distributors to know their responsibility. Most importantly, the brands have a special meaning to consumers. Because consumers learned the brands based on the experiences of using the products and from the years of manufacturers marketing plans that they can ﬁnd which brand is acceptable and which brand are not satisfy their needs. As a re-sult, the brands become a kind of shorthand to simplify products purchase decision tools or methods (Keller, 2001). People may ﬁnd it rational to make different inferences from the brands they see and from the words they hear (Kuksov, 2007). Therefore, the brands can help consumers connect all the factors of the product. While brands have been widely used to identify products origin and its physical characteristics for many centuries (Farquhar, 1989), currently, the brand-related issues, such as, brand loyalty,

brand image and brand equity are widely discussed, but being less concerned about the brand-related marketing to create brand va-lue. Based on the smiling curve (Shih, 1992), it showed enhancing the marketing and R&D will create value-added to the products or brands (see theFig. 1). Herremans, Ryans, and Aggarwal (2000)

also pointed out that customers are retained in several ways but generally by some form of investment in marketing and/or R&D. Marketing support might lead directly to building brand value, which in turn retains customers.

Another possibility is that marketing support might retain cus-tomers; customer’s retention then reduces return volatility, which in turn builds brand value (Herremans et al., 2000).Keller (2001)

noted that the beneﬁcial association to the brands is able to satisfy the consumer’s needs and successfully communicate with consum-ers by the products or marketing strategy. The brand marketing in-cludes many elements, we can generalize the elements from the literature ofKeller (2001)who noted the brand-related marketing with product strategy, price strategy, channel strategy and com-munication strategy, and use them to satisfy customer’s needs for creating brand value.

However, there are many factors in brand marketing and they are complicated and interrelated. One of the hybrid MCDM model combining the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) with analytic network process (ANP) and VIKOR meth-ods can be effectively used to solve the complex and tangled prob-lem of understanding the complex structure of the causal

⇑Corresponding author at: Institute of Management of Technology, National Chiao-Tung University, No. 1001, Ta-Hsueh Road, Hsin-Chu 300, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 3 3412500x1101.

E-mail addresses: lydia.wang77@yahoo.com.tw (Y.-L. Wang), ghtzeng@ mail.knu.edu.tw,ghtzeng@cc.nctu.edu.tw(G.-H. Tzeng).

Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

(2)

relationships; subsequently, one can probe the interrelated rela-tionships between the dimensions and criteria and then to build a impact relation map (IRM) among criteria for brand marketing evaluation. The weights of each factor of MCDM problem for selecting the best strategy will then be derived by utilizing the ANP combined DMATEL (Li & Tzeng, 2009a, 2009b; Tzeng, Chiang, & Li, 2007). We then identiﬁed the most suitable strategy by VIKOR and offered a complete depiction and testing of the decision model for a reference to enterprises (Chen & Tzeng, 2011, Chen, Hsu, & Tzeng, 2011; Chen, Lein, et al., 2011;Huang, Tzeng, & Ho, 2011; Hung, Chou, & Tzeng, 2011; Liou & Tzeng, 2011; Liu, Tzeng, & Lee, 2011, 2012; Ou Yang, Shieh, & Tzeng, 2012; Shen, Lin, & Tzeng, 2011; Yang & Tzeng, 2011).

Currently, the DEMATEL has been applied in marketing to dis-cuss consumers’ behavior of marketing strategy (Chiu, Chen, Tzeng, & Shyu, 2006); in the innovation of industries discussing the policy mix on re-conﬁguration (Huang, Shyu, & Tzeng, 2007). And in R&D,

Lin and Tzeng (2009)discussed the value of technology innovation. The analytic network process (ANP) was proposed bySaaty (1996)

to overcome the problem of dependence and feedback among cri-teria or alternatives (Liou, Tzeng, & Chang, 2007). Furthermore, the ANP method is used to decide the relative weights of the criteria. It improves the visibility of decision-making processes and generates priorities between the decision alternatives. In order to provide a systematic approach to set priorities among multi-criteria and trade-off among objectives, the ANP method is applied prior to goal programming formulation, for example: selecting management systems for sustainable development (Tsai & Chou, 2009), the choice of logistics service providers (Jharkharia & Shankar, 2007). In addition, the VIKOR method was applied to determine the best feasible solution according to the selected criteria, such as priori-tizing land-use restraint strategies (Chang & Hsu, 2009), supplier selection (Sanayei, Mousavi, & Yazdankhah, 2010), portfolio selec-tion (Ho, Tsai, Tzeng, & Fang, 2011).

Therefore, the purpose of this study is intended to provide an empirical case in brand marketing to demonstrate how the MCDM model can be applied to brand marketing to discover important factors that can create brand value. This study proposes a hybrid MCDM model combining the DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR meth-ods to illustrate the interrelated relationships in brand marketing. After understanding the interrelated relationships, we can ﬁnd the problems or gaps in brand marketing; then, we evaluate the situa-tion to reduce the gaps in order to achieve the aspired levels in each criterion by considering an impact-relations-map for brand marketing to create brand value. This study also ranks the priori-ties of dimensions and criteria to ﬁnd the important factors in brand marketing and also evaluates the customer’s satisfaction of

brand marketing in 3 chosen electronic manufacturing companies in Taiwan.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: we re-viewed the literature in Section2. A hybrid MCDM model combin-ing DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR for brand marketcombin-ing is introduced in Section3. An empirical case of brand marketing is illustrated to demonstrate the proposed methods in Section4. Con-clusions are presented in the last Section.

2. Literature review

The purpose of this Section is to identify the inﬂuential factors of brand marketing based on past literatures and discuss studies. To make up for such a gap, this study conducted a literature review

of Keller (2001) who noted that the elements and selections of

brands will create value for the customer-based brand, and the most important strategy is brand-related marketing activities and marketing planning such as: the perceived quality, perceived value and enhance the consumer experience of product strategy; the consumer’s price perception and value pricing of price strategy; the channel design, push and pull strategy and channel support of channel strategy; the advertisement, promotions, event market-ing and sponsorship, public relations and publicity materials and personal selling of communication strategy.

2.1. The brand deﬁnition

The different approaches to define the brand construct partly stem from differing philosophies (such as product-plus and holistic branding outlined below) and stakeholder perspective, (i.e., a brand may be defined from the consumers’ perspective and/or from the brand owner’s perspective). In addition, brands are some-times defined in terms of their purpose, and somesome-times described by their characteristics. From this diversity an integrated definition is drawn (Wood, 2000).

TheAmerican Marketing Association (1960)proposed the

fol-lowing company-oriented deﬁnition of a brand as: a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. This deﬁnition has been criticized for being too product-oriented, with emphasis on visual features as differentiating mechanisms (Arnold, 1992; Crainer, 1995).Watkins (1986), Aaker (1991), Stanton, Etzel, and Walker (1991), Doyle (1994) and Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders,

and Wong (1996) adopted this deﬁnition. Dibb, Simkin, Pride,

and Ferrell (1997)use theBennett (1988)variant of the definition which is: a brand is a name, term, design, symbol or any other fea-ture that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. The key changed to the original definition are the words ‘‘any other feature’’ as this allows for intangibles, such as image, to be the point of differentiation. The particular va-lue of this definition is that it focuses on a fundamental brand pur-pose, which is differentiation. It should not be forgotten that brands operate in a market environment where differentiation is crucially important. Even where monopolies exist, companies may choose to position their brand(s) with a view to future compe-tition. The other key feature of this definition is that it takes the corporate perspective rather than emphasizing consumer benefits.

Ambler (1992)takes a consumer-oriented approach in deﬁning a

brand as: the promise of the bundles of attributes that someone buys and provides satisfaction. The attributes that make up a brand may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or invisible. Many other brand deﬁnitions and descriptions focus on the meth-ods used to achieve differentiation and/or emphasize the beneﬁts the consumer derives from purchasing brands. These include (inter

Brand, Marketing Technology R&D Knowledge-based Marketing Knowledge-based Technology Knowledge-based Production

Customer needs Innovation/Creativity Value-added

Distributions Assembly Components Local Competition Global Competition

Value-added

(3)

alia) deﬁnitions and descriptions that emphasize brands as an im-age in the consumers’ minds (Boulding, 1956; Martineau, 1959; Keller, 1993) brand personality (Alt & Griggs, 1988; Goodyear, 1993; Aaker, 1996), brands as value systems (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991, 1991), and brands as added value (Levitt, 1962; de Chernatony & McDonald, 1992; Murphy, 1992; Wolfe, 1993; Doyle, 1994).

Styles and Ambler (1995) identiﬁed two broad philosophical

approaches to define a brand. The first is the product-plus ap-proach which views branding as an addition to the product. The brand is essentially viewed as an identifier. In this context, brand-ing would be one of the final processes in new product develop-ment (i.e., it is additional to the product). The second approach is the holistic perspective in which the focus is the brand itself. Using the marketing mix, the brand is tailored to the needs and wants of a specified target group. The elements of the marketing mix are unified by the brand such that the individual elements of the mix (for instance price), are managed in a way which supports the brand message (Wood, 2000).

2.2. Brand-related marketing for creating brand value

With the increasing emphasis on services in all markets, the dif-ferences of marketing practices in consumers and business mar-kets are diminishing (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). However, some differences may exist when it comes to branding (Mudambi, 2002). A number of attempts have been made to reconcile the dif-ferences in accounting/finance with marketing perspectives. In-deed, as an example of the importance of doing so, Anderson (1982)noted that ignoring the financial implications of marketing decisions (such as increases in working capital or in optimal debt ratios) is a serious form of marketing myopia. Brand marketing is an action that enterprise takes a long time to express the brand im-age and the concept of products; therefore, successful companies have discovered the brand characteristics and try to maintain the brand image. The successful brand marketing will make the brand gained more loyalty from consumers and increase more profits on investment.

These attributes emanate from all elements of the marketing mix and the attributes of a brand are created by using the market-ing mix. In marketmarket-ing, the link between brands and added value is common thought not consistent. It is recognized that marketing, as a discipline, sometimes uses and adapts concepts derived from other disciplines. The concept of added value most notably can be found in economics, accounting and marketing literature, and there is a distinct integration of ideas among the three disciplines.

Wood (1996)explored the various approaches to the concept of

added value and examines the fundamental differences in the accounting and marketing approaches. These are very briefly out-lined next. In accounting, added value is quantifiable and some-thing that accrues to the organization. The accounting approach is typified byLucey (1985), who defined added value as: the differ-ence between sales income and bought in goods and services. Va-lue-added is the wealth that a firm creates by its own efforts. In accounting, added value is quantifiable and something that accrues to the organization. The accounting approach is typified byLucey

(1985), who deﬁned added value as: the difference between sales

income and bought in goods and services. Value added is the wealth that a firm creates by its own efforts. In marketing, added value is not quantifiable and is translated as a consumer benefit. The marketing approach is indicated by Kinner and Bernhardt

(1986) when they suggested that: many companies make their

product more convenient to use, thus adding value for the con-sumer.Wood (1996)suggested that what marketers call added va-lue would better be termed added vava-lue agents. Much marketing activity is based around managing added value agents, the

outcomes of which are represented by added value itself. Added value agents are many and various, but branding is of major impor-tance, and gets significant coverage in the marketing literature. By managing added value agents, marketers can significantly increase added value that accrues to the organization. Added value agents such as brands provide benefits for the consumers that are suffi-cient to create purchases. From a marketing perspective, it is recog-nized that products that have yet to be sold have potential added value (Ecroyd & Lyons, 1979) which marketing activity can help to realize. Although added value can be attributed to products and service, both core and surround, increasingly added value agents, such as brand image, are derived from the less tangible as-pects. Added value is implicit to this definition. That is, a brand is a mechanism for achieving competitive advantage for firms, through differentiation (purpose). The attributes that differentiate a brand provide the customer with satisfaction and benefits for which they are willing to pay (mechanism). Competitive advantage for firms may be determined in terms of revenue, profit, added value or mar-ket share. Benefits the consumer purchases may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or intangible. In whatever way the benefits or attributes of brands are described, it is important they are distinguished from the added value (and other advantages) the firm gains, as this has been the source of much confusion (Wood, 2000).

Brand value is suggested as one of the performance measures that can replace the term ‘‘competitive advantage’’. It is a relation-ship between the various concepts of brand equity (i.e., brand va-lue is a function of brand strength which is, in turn, an unction of brand description), brand description determines brand strength, which in turn determines brand value. The brand strength and brand value provides information that may determine how brand description is managed. Whereas added value, profit and revenue are historically focused measures, brand value looks to the future. Brand value is an index-based measure that seeks to represent the net present value of the future earnings stream of a brand. The job of managers of brands, therefore, is to maximize the long-term va-lue of that earnings stream. This will require expenditure on the marketing mix to support brands, and may lead to short-term sub-optimization (even to profit and loss account losses) to ensure the long-term brand building. Brand value has an additional advantage over other measures, in that it addresses the health of the market, as well as the health of the brand within a market. A key benefit of adopting brand value as a performance measure is that it creates a long-term focus for management. If brand strength is the degree of attachment to a brand, and brand value is based on the future earnings of a brand then the higher the brand strength the higher the brand value. Managers of brands (not necessarily marketers alone) should therefore manage, and seek to maximize, both brand strength and brand value. The natural long-term out-come of this should be increased profitability (Wood, 2000).

2.3. The measurements for brand marketing

Keller (2001) proposed that the elements and selection of

brands will create value for the customer-based brand, and the most important strategy is brand-related marketing activities and marketing planning such as:

2.3.1. Product strategy

Product is the core of the brand. To consumers, the brand expe-rience and the company communication will let them receive the product information, and it will also form an inﬂuence on their purchase. The prerequisite of successful marketing is whether the product is a substance, service, organization or design, they all meet the customer’s needs and satisfaction. The factors of the products strategy is as following:

(4)

(1) Perceived quality: perceived quality is considered a ‘‘core/ primary’’ facet across customer-based brand (CBBE) equity frameworks (Aaker, 1996; Dyson, Farr, & Hollis, 1996;Farqu-har, 1989; Keller, 1993). Perceived quality represents con-sumers’ judgments regarding a brand’s overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988). Consumers will rely more on physical characteristics of products than on extrinsic cues if they believe they can conﬁdently judge those physical characteristics that indicate product quality (Jacoby, Olson, & Haddock, 1971; Szybillo & Jacoby, 1974; Valenzi &

Andrews, 1971; Wheatley, Chiu, & Goldman, 1981) and

when they are highly involved in the judgment or decision (Maheswaran, Mackie, & Chaiken, 1992; Sprott & Shimp, 2004). From a consumer-level perspective, brand equity is augmentable by enhancing a brand’s image (Keller, 1993), and because perceived quality is an important component of image, anything done to enhance quality perceptions will improve equity as well. A deﬁnition that has gained some level of acceptance views perceived quality as judgment of the overall excellence, esteem, or superiority of a brand (with respect to its intended purposes) relative to alternative brand(s). Perceived quality is at a higher level of abstraction than any speciﬁc attribute, and differs from objective quality as perceived quality is more akin to an attitudinal assess-ment of a brand—a global affective assessassess-ment of a brand’s performance relative to other brands (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Zeithaml, 1988).

(2) Perceived value: the perceived value is defined as ‘‘the con-sumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or ser-vice) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988).Bishop (1984)also pointed out that customer’s perceived value can be defined from the perspec-tives of money, quality, benefit, and social psychology. More specific, perceived value can be summarized as a trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived costs (Lovelock, 2000). Recent research studies have suggested that per-ceived value may be a better predictor of repurchase inten-tions than either satisfaction or quality (Cronin, Brady, &

Hult, 2000; Oh, 2000; Chen, 2008). Perceived value can be

analyzed with a unidimensional measure (Gale, 1994) or a multidimensional scale (Sheth et al., 1991, Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Petrick & Backman, 2002). The Monetary per-spective indicates that value is generated when less is paid (such as by using coupons or promotions) for goods. In other words, it is the concept of consumer surplus in economics; perceived value is the difference between the highest price that consumers are willing to pay for a product or a service and the amount practically paid (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009). According to the quality perspective, value is the difference between the money paid for a certain product and the qual-ity of the product (Bishop, 1984). That is, when less money is paid for a high quality product, positive perceived value will be created. The benefit perspective indicates that perceived value is customers’ verall evaluation of the utility of per-ceived benefits and perper-ceived sacrifices (Zeithaml, 1988). In other words, consumers may cognitively integrate their perceptions of what they get and what they have to give up in order to obtaining goods (Kuo et al., 2009).

(3) Enhance the consumer experience: employing an economic and marketing perspective, Schmitt (1999) declared that experiences are private, personal events that occur in response to some stimulation and involve the entire being as a result of observing or participating in an event. He pos-tulated that in order to stimulate desired consumer experi-ences, marketers must provide the right setting and environment.Lewis and Chambers (2000)deﬁned consumer

experience as ‘‘the total outcome to the customer from the combination of environment, goods and services pur-chased’’. Finally, most researchers attempting to deﬁne the experience overlook the operational patterns that are com-mon to many consumer experiences. Consumers who have actually tried a brand and experienced its intrinsic attributes should rely less on the brand name cue when forming qual-ity judgments compared to when judging qualqual-ity without trial experience (Sprott & Shimp, 2004).

2.3.2. Price strategy

Shipley and Jobber (2001)proposed that the determination of

the objectives of the pricing process is the starting point of pricing strategies. The objectives of the pricing process are a direct result of a company’s overall strategy. Price is an important factor of enterprise’s income, and it is associated with the strong awareness, and uniqueness of the brand. The factors of the price strategy in-cludes is as following:

(1) Consumer’s price perception: studies have advocated that price perception is a complex and broad stimulus which con-sists of positive and negative cues to consumers (Erickson & Johansson, 1985; Lichtenstein, Bloch, & Black, 1988, 1993). Previous studies have identiﬁed a number of constructs, such as value consciousness, price consciousness, sale proneness, and price mavenim, which represent price in its negative role. Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer

(1993)deﬁned value consciousness as the concern for price

paid relative to quality received, and price consciousness as the degree to which the consumer focuses exclusively on paying low prices. On the other hand, price-quality schema and prestige sensitivity have been recognized as a positive perception of price.Lichtenstein et al. (1993) deﬁned the price-quality schema as the level of the price cue that is related positively to the quality level of the product. (2) Value pricing: a product’s economic value is the price of the

customer’s best alternative-reference value-plus the value of whatever differentiates the offering from the alternative – differentiation value (Nagle & Holden, 1999). In this deﬁni-tion, reference is thus made to the received value of custom-ers—the value customer actually experience through speciﬁc product-customer interactions—and not to customers’ desired value—the value customers want from products and services and their providers (Flint & Woodruff, 2001). The concept of economic (or customer) value is being inter-preted in two different ways. According toSimpson, Siguaw, and Baker (2001), Ulaga and Chacour (2001), Walter, Ritter,

and Gemuenden (2001), and Zeithaml (1988), customer

value is the difference between perceived benefits and sacri-fices. In microeconomic terms, customer value is seen here as the difference between the consumer’s willingness to pay and the actual price paid, which is equal to the ‘‘con-sumer surplus,’’ the excess value retained by the con‘‘con-sumer. From a marketing perspective, the goal of pricing strategy is to assign a price that is the monetary equivalent of the value the customer perceives in the product while meeting profit and return on investment goals. Conversely, pricing approaches based on customers’ perceptions of value are strategic and long-term in nature since they are focused on capturing unique value from each market segment through the pricing mechanism (Harmon, Raffo, & Faulk, 2005). Cus-tomer value is the overall benefit derived from the product, as the customer perceives it, at the price the customer is willing to pay. At the core of perceived value pricing is the requirement that companies must first understand how the customer perceives value. Perceived value can be defined

(5)

in terms of the tradeoff between perceived benefits received and the perceived price for acquiring the product or service that delivers those benefits. Software developers should understand what these tradeoffs are and how they should influence software design (Harmon et al., 2005).

2.3.3. Channel strategy

Stone, Hobbs, and Khaleeli (2002)studied an emerging distribu-tion strategy using more than one retail type to serve consumers, which is channel retailing, and they concluded that multi-channel retailing provided unique shopping experiences and val-ues for consumers. The sales and delivery channel of product will impose a big inﬂuence on the last selling. The channel strategy in-cludes the design and management, such as: wholesalers, distribu-tors, dealers and retailers. The factors of channel strategy can be divided into:

(1) Direct and indirect channels: Moriarty, Swartz, and Khuen

(1988)study multi-channels with a combination of direct

and indirect channels, ‘‘hybrid channels’’, and emphasized the element of competition between the manufacturer and the indirect channels in consumers’ decisions. While most volume brands rely on indirect channels, except in metro areas where cost of land is very high, premium brands in general have a mixture of direct and indirect sales channels. The aim of an indirect channel may be to replicate a manu-facturer’s direct channel and fulﬁll the manumanu-facturer’s inten-tions, thus assuming the manufacturer’s role as channel captain. However, substantial differences exist between brands in this respect, apart from the structural choice of direct or indirect channels (Winter & Szulanski, 2001; Par-ment, 2008).

(2) Push and pull: pure push strategy means that the brand owner only devotes resources to motivate desirable behav-ior at the next vertical level of the channel (i.e., retailers in this study). On the other hand, sole reliance on a pull strat-egy means that the brand owner only devotes resources to motivate brand preference with end customers (Frazier, 1999). An interaction between a message sender and recei-ver is identiﬁed as push-style if the message transfer is ini-tiated by the sender. In contrast, a pull-style communication represents interactions initiated by the receiver. An event channel may communicate with a sup-plier using one style of communication, and communicate with a consumer using a different style of communication (Zhao, 2003). A brand owner can enjoy a favorable position with the pull effects from the ultimate buyers (Corey, Ran-gan, & Cespedes, 1989).Webster (2000)also noted that the relationship between the brand and the consumer is an important part of the relationship between the manufac-turer and the reseller. Consumers’ favorable attitude toward the particular brands that a retailer carries can generate positive externalities for the retailer in other product catego-ries by creating demand pull effects (Fein & Anderson, 1997). This is called ‘‘consumers’ pull force.’’ Consumer’s pull force comes from the brand owner having devoting resources to motivate brands preference with end customers (Frazier, 1999).

(3) Channel support: retail structure and geography are here deﬁned as the number of channels and outlets and their extension in terms of geography and size, including the number of sales outlets and how they are scattered across different types of areas Parment (2008). If a retailer in a channel relationship believes that a given brand owner cre-ates higher value than alternatives, the retailer is likely to be more satisﬁed with the relationship with the brand owner

(Simpson et al., 2001). Market-level response is the strategic imperative for any marketing strategy. This research is con-cerned in particular with market response to multiple chan-nel retailing. Recent market research suggested that customer shopping patterns have evolved to take advantage of the new multiple channel environments. Results indicate that 35 percent of the consumers surveyed shopped using some combination of catalogs, bricks-and-mortar stores, and the internet; 66 percent said that they had visited one channel before purchasing from another (Saunders, 2002). These customers ‘‘are combining various channels and approaches, searching online to buy offline, searching offline to buy online-and everything in between’’ (Wind & Mahajan, 2002). We defined customer multi-channel employment as the number of different channels a customer visits in making a purchase. With the advent of multi-channel shopping, cus-tomers have expectations regarding the service outputs available to them from all of a retailer’s channels.

2.3.4. Communication strategy

Keller (2001)considered the most ﬂexible marketing strategy is the ‘‘marketing communication’’, it also the last element of brand building. Enterprises can use the communication tools to inform the brand message for consumers by directly or indirectly to per-suade and remind them. Brand marketing communication is repre-sented a ‘‘Voice’’ which make dialogues and a well relationship between the company and consumers. The function of marketing communication will make the brand better, favorable and unique in consumer’s mind such as:

(1) Advertisement: advertising, it has been conjectured in prior literature, shapes consumer preferences in multiple ways. The first, most obvious effect is that advertising informs the consumer of product attributes and hence raises aware-ness and knowledge of the true quality of the brand. This has been called the informative effect of advertising (Bucklin, 1965; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961). Second, advertising may directly influence a consumer’s brand evaluations through such cues as celebrity endorsements and music, even with-out providing any explicit information. This has been referred to as the persuasive or prestige effect of ads (Aaker & Stayman, 1990; Batra & Ray, 1986). Third, advertising can influence how consumers experience and evaluate the qual-ity of the product from subsequent consumption. This effect has been evocatively referred to as the transformative effect of advertising (Deighton, 1984; Mehta, Chen, & Narasimhan, 2008). Most print advertisements contain a brand, pictorial, and text element. The brand element covers the visual brand identity cues in print advertisements, such as the brand name, trademark, and logo of the source (Keller, 2003). The existence of both category-level and brand-level advertising in commodity markets raises the possibility of advertising interdependence. More specifically, there is a concern that generic advertising may mitigate or amplify the advertising efforts of individual brands (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). (2) Sale promotions: sales promotions, in general, are meant to

stimulate stronger target market response than would otherwise occur without the promotions. They can originate with the manufacturer and be directed at the retailer or con-sumer, or be targeted at the consumer by the retailer. Man-ufacturer to retailer promotions, or trade promotions, are often in the form of cash, advertising, or trade allowances. Manufacturer to consumer promotions might consist of cou-pons, mail-in refunds, or free samples. Retailers to consumer promotions often take the form of discounts, free gifts, and contests (Lilien, Kotler, & Moorthy, 1992; Nair and

(6)

Tarase-wich, 2002). Sales promotions are marketing events and tools designed to stimulate quicker and greater purchases for a limited period of time (Kotler, 1988). Much research on consumer responses to sales promotion examines imme-diate effects on consumer purchases (Gupta, 1988;Inman, McAlister, & Hoyer, 1990; Nijs, Dekimpe, Steenkamp, & Hanssens, 2001; Valette-Florence, Guizani, & Merunka, 2011). In the simplest terms, sales promotion is all about ‘‘adding value’’ and ‘‘prompting action’’ in order to achieve predeﬁned marketing objectives. The added value can be ‘‘real’’ or ‘‘perceived’’ but must constitute something addi-tional to the basic brand proposition (Simonetti, 2005). (3) Event marketing and sponsorship: corporate sponsorship

frequently generates a favorable image for the sponsor, both at the corporate and brand levels (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). In much the same way that a product may share the image of an endorsing celebrity, meanings held by events are trans-ferable to a brand through sponsorship (Cornwell & Coote, 2005; Gwinner, 1997; Chien, Cornwell, & Pappu, 2011). Co-branding theory suggested that pairing an event with a des-tination will engender some transfer of image between the event and destination brands (Xing & Chalip, 2006). If sec-ondary associations with events can lead to the transfer of attitudes to the brand, by extension, attitudes associated with sponsors are also expected to transfer to evaluations the event. When one considers the case of multiple sponsors, the brands and event are associated via the placement of representations of the entities (Ruth & Simonin, 2003). Event marketing links a company’s brand to an activity for the pur-pose of creating experiences for attendees and promoting a product or service. The synergies between sponsorships and event marketing encourage their joint application. Whereas sponsorship alone has a limited ability to relay spe-ciﬁc product information, event marketing at sponsored events increases the quantity and types of information ﬁrms can convey to consumers (Grohs, Wagner, & Vsetecka, 2004; Lacey, Close, & Finney, 2010).

(4) Public relations and publicity materials: public relations are a profession wherein roles of expertise and responsibility exist. Early investigation into the kinds of work performed by public relations professionals identified four specific roles: the expert prescriber, the communication facilitator, the problem-solver, and the communication technician ( Alg-ren & Eichhorn, 2007; Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997;Broom & Dozier, 1986; Broom & Smith, 1979). Propaganda was developed and used to bring about cooperation between the industrialized society and the fighting armed forces. Carefully designed propaganda messages were communi-cated through news stories, films, photograph records, speeches, books, sermons, posters, rumours, billboard adver-tisements, and handbills to the general public. From a com-munication perspective, several key features make propaganda the tool of choice in certain contexts, and public diplomacy in other contexts. Propaganda deliberately manipulates the communication through a variety of tech-niques so that some aspect is hidden from the audience and the audience feels compelled to accept the message. With coercion as the goal, information control and deception are keys to effective propaganda. Propaganda Institute iden-tified many of the techniques such as ’’name-calling, label-ing, bandwagon, etc.’’ used to manipulate and control information (Zaharna, 2004).

(5) Personnel selling: several aspects have been addressed within the behavior framework, including the view intro-duced byEvans (1963)that the content of selling is a dyadic relationship leading to the adaptation of knowledge about

the communication process and its specific features in buyer–seller relationships. Salespeople play a key role in the formation of long-term buyer–seller relationship. As the primary link between the buying and selling firm, they have considerable influence on the buyer’s interest in continuing the relationship (Biong & Selnes, 1996).Wotruba (1991)suggested the nature of personal selling, like

market-ingKotler (1998), has involved through the four

eras-pro-ductions sales, marketing, and partnering. In each of these eras, the role of sales differs, and thus salespeople in these role engage in different activities and need different sets of knowledge, skills and abilities to be effective. The sale role is to stimulate, rather than satisfy, demand for products. To persuade customers that they need a supplier’s products, salespeople in this role focus on achieving selling techniques to persuade customers to buy products (Weitz & Bradford, 1999).

Based on the standpoints of Keller (2001); four factors (dimensions) impact on brand marketing: (1) product strat-egy, (2) price stratstrat-egy, (3) channel stratstrat-egy, and (4) commu-nication strategy. In addition, reviewing literature shows that product strategy is affected by three criteria: perceived quality, perceived value, and enhance the consumer experi-ence; price strategy is affected by two criteria: consumer’s price perception, value pricing; channel strategy is affected by three criteria: channel design, push and pull strategy and channel support and communication strategy is affected by ﬁve criteria: advertisement, promotions, event marketing and sponsorship, public relations and publicity materials and personal selling which are interpreted inTable 1.

3. Building a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP for brand marketing

As any criterion may inter-influenced, this study adopted DEM-ATEL technique to know the influenced structure between the cri-terion and try to find the problems which we can improve. After knowing the influenced structure between each criterion, we weighted them by combined the ANP method to find the most important criterion that will help to create brand value. In order to understand the gap of each criterion and to rank the first impor-tant strategy to carry out, the VIKOR technique will be leveraged for calculating compromise ranking and gap of the alternatives. In short, the framework of evaluation contains three main phases: (1) constructing the impact- relations-map (IRM) among criteria by the DEMATEL technique, (2) calculating the weights of each crite-rion by combined the ANP based on the IRM, and (3) ranking or improving the priorities of alternatives of brand marketing through the VIKOR.

3.1. The DEMATEL for constructing IRM

DEMATEL has been successfully applied in many situations, such as marketing strategies, e-learning evaluation, control sys-tems and safety problems (Chiu et al., 2006), information security (Ou Yang, Shieh, Leu, & Tzeng, 2009), financial stock investment (Lee, Tzeng, Guan, Chien, & Huang, 2009, 2009), and water re-sources and environment (Chen, Lien, & Tzeng, 2010). The method-ology can confirm interdependence among variables/criteria and restrict the relations that reflect characteristics within an essential systemic and developmental trend. The method can be summa-rized as follows (Li & Tzeng, 2009a, 2009b; Liou et al., 2007):

Step 1: Calculate the initial average matrix by scores. Respondents are asked to indicate the direct effects they believe each element i exerts on each element j of others, as indicated

(7)

by aij, using an integer scale ranging from 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4

(going from ‘‘No inﬂuence (0),’’ to ‘‘Very high inﬂuence (4)’’). From any group of direct matrices of respondents, it is possible to derive an average matrix A = [aij]nn by

experts, each element being the mean of the same ele-ments in the various direct matrices of the respondents. Step 2: Calculate the initial inﬂuence matrix. The initial inﬂuence

matrix D = [dij]nnis obtained by normalizing the average

matrix A (shown by degree, i.e., shown by membership and 0 6 dij< 1, also called the ‘‘fuzzy cognitive matrix’’),

in which all principal diagonal elements equal zero. Based on D, the initial effect that an element exerts and receives from another is shown. The map portrays a contextual relationship among the elements of a system, in which a numeral represents the strength of inﬂuence (affected degree).

Step 3: Derive the full direct/indirect inﬂuence matrix. A continuous decrease of the indirect effects of problems along the pow-ers of e.g., D2_{, D}3_{, . . . , D}m _{and lim}

‘?1D‘= [0]nn, where

D = [dij]nn, 0 6 dij< 1 and 0 6Pidij61 or 0 6Pjdij61

and at least one column or one row of summation equals one, but not all. Let the (i, j) element of matrix A be denoted by aij, the matrix D can be gained as follows.

D ¼ s A; ð1Þ

where

s ¼ Min 1

max16i6nPnj¼1jaijj

; 1

max16i6nPni¼1jaijj

" # ð2Þ and lim ‘!1 D ‘ ¼ ½0_nn; 0 6 dij61: ð3Þ

Step 4: Attaining the total-inﬂuence matrix T. The total-inﬂuence matrix T can be obtained by using Eq. (4) where I is denoted as the identity matrix.

T ¼ D þ D2

þ þ D‘

¼ DðI DÞ1 when ‘ ! 1: ð4Þ

If we deﬁne the sum of rows and the sum of columns separately denoted as vector r and c within the total-inﬂuence matrix T through Eqs.(5), (6)then

T ¼ ½tij; i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð5Þ r ¼ ½rin1¼ Xn j¼1 tij " # n1 ; c ¼ ½cjn1¼ Xn i¼1 tij " #0 1n ; ð6Þ

where superscript0_{denotes transposition.}

Suppose ridenotes the row sum of the ith row matrix T, then ri

shows the sum of direct and indirect effects of factor i on the other factors/criteria. If cidenotes the column sum of the jth column of

matrix T, then cjshows the sum of direct and indirect effects that

factor j has received from the other factors. Furthermore, when j = i (i.e. the sum of the row and column aggregates) (ri+ ci)

pro-vides an index of the strength of inﬂuences given and received, that is, (ri+ ci) shows the degree that the factor i plays in the problem. If

(ri ci) is positive, then factor i is affecting other factors, and if

(ri ci) is negative, then factor i is being inﬂuenced by other factors

(Tsai & Chou, 2009; Tzeng et al., 2007; Wu & Lee, 2007).

3.2. Combining ANP method for calculating weights of criteria based on the IRM

We call the total-inﬂuenced matrix Tc= [tij]nnobtained by

cri-teria and TD¼ ½tDijmm obtained by dimensions (clusters) from Tc.

Then, we normalize supermatrix Tcfor the ANP weights of

dimen-sions (clusters) by using inﬂuence matrix TD.

Step5: Establish the unweighted Supermatrix. The total-inﬂuence matrix will be obtained form DEMATEL. Each column will sum for normalization.

: ð7Þ

Table 1

Explanation of criteria.

Dimensions & Evaluation criteria Descriptions Product strategy (D1)

Perceived quality (c1) The advantage for the quality perception of products and services

Perceived value (c2) The combination of the quality perception and cost perception to estimate the value of the products Enhance the consumer experience

(c3)

To ﬁnd a way that how to encourage consumers to try the products and repurchase Price strategy (D2)

Consumer’s price perception (c4) Take the value-based pricing strategies to attempt making the price more reasonable and offer a better product to satisfy consumer’s expectation

Value pricing (c5) To expose the quality and cost of the products, and try to satisfy customer’s needs by mix the product quality and price Channels strategy (D3)

Direct and indirect channel (c6) Direct channel including letters, phone calls, e-mail and personal interview to sell products for customers. Indirect channel including agents, brokers, wholesalers, distributors, retailers

Push and pull (c7) Pull strategy means that consumers will use their purchasing power to inﬂuence the retailers to ‘‘pull’’ the products through the channels. Directly stimulates the channels to purchase or sell products to consumers, which is called push strategy

Channels support (c8) Many different services are provided by the channel members, and these services can enhance the consumers to purchase or receive the values of brand. Channel support can be divided into: the retail segment, company itself, and other tools Communication strategy (D4)

Advertisement (c9) Advertisers provided the ideas, goods or services in terms of any non-staff to present and sell products

Sales promotions (c10) Eencouraging customers to try the products, services or use the products in short-term incentive while it has many ways in sales promotions

Event marketing and sponsorship (c11)

It refers to sports, arts, entertainments or social activities related to public events or activities which are public sponsored Public relations and propaganda

material (c12)

Public relations and propaganda materials are related with any programs, and are designed to promote and protect the company’s image or its individual products

(8)

After normalizing the total-inﬂuence matrix Tcby dimensions

(clus-ters), we will obtain a new matrix Tacwhich is shown as Eq.(8).

: ð8Þ

In addition, an explanation for the normalization Ta11

c is shown as

Eqs.(9), (10), and other Tannc are as above.

d11ci ¼ Xm1 j¼1 t11 ij ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m1; ð9Þ Ta11 c ¼ t11 c11=d 11 c1 t 11 c1j=d 11 c1 t 11 c1m1=d 11 c1 .. . .. . .. . t11 ci1=d 11 ci t 11 cij=d 11 ci t 11 cim1=d 11 ci .. . .. . .. . t11 cm11=d 11 cm1 t 11 cm1j=d 11 cm1 t 11 cm1m1=d 11 cm1 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 ¼ ta11 c11 ta 11 c1j ta 11 c1m1 .. . .. . .. . ta11 ci1 ta 11 cij ta 11 cim1 .. . .. . .. . ta11 cm11 t a11 cm1j t a11 cm1m1 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 : ð10Þ

Let total-inﬂuence matrix match and ﬁll into the interdependence clusters. It called unweighted supermatrix is shown as Eq. (11)

which based on transpose the normalized inﬂuence matrix Ta_c by dimensions (clusters), i.e., W ¼ Tac

0

.

: ð11Þ

If the matrix W11_{is blank or 0 which shown as Eq.}₍₁₂₎_{means the}

matrix between the clusters or criteria is independent and with no interdependent, and the other Wnn_{are as above.}

ð12Þ

Step 6: For obtaining the weighted Supermatrix, each column will sum for normalization as Eq.(13).

TD¼ t11 D t 1j D t 1n D .. . .. . .. . ti1 D t ij D tinD .. . .. . .. . tn1 D t nj D t nn D 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 : ð13Þ

We normalized the total-inﬂuence matrix TD, and obtained a new

matrix TaD is shown as Eq.(14)(where ta ij D ¼ t ij D=diÞ. TaD¼ t11 D=d1 t1jD=d1 t1nD=d1 .. . .. . .. . ti1 D=di tijD=di tinD=di .. . .. . .. . tn1 D=dn tnjD=dn tnnD=dn 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 ¼ ta11 D t a1j D ta 1n D .. . .. . .. . tai1 D t aij D taDin .. . .. . .. . tan1 D t anj D ta nn D 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 : ð14Þ

Let the normalized total-inﬂuence matrix Ta_D ﬁll into the un-weighted supermatrix to obtain the un-weighted supermatrix.

Wa¼ TaDW ¼ ta11 D W 11 tai1 D W 1j tan1 D W 1n .. . .. . .. . taD1j W i1 taDij W ij taDnj W in .. . .. . .. . ta1n D W n1 tain D W nj tann D W nn 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 : ð15Þ

Step 7: Limit the weighted supermatrix. Limit the weighted supermatrix by raising it to a sufﬁciently large power k, until the supermatrix has converged and become a long-term stable supermatrix to get the global priority vectors, called ANP weights, such as limh?1(Wa)h.

3.3. The VIKOR for ranking and improving the alternatives

(Opricovic, 1988) proposed the compromise ranking method

(VIKOR) as one applicable technique to implement within MCDM. Suppose the feasible alternatives are represented by A1, A2, . . . , Ak, . . . , Am. The performance score of alternative Ak and

the jth criterion is denoted by fkj; wjis the weight (relative

impor-tance) of the jth criterion, where j = 1, 2, . . . , n, and n is the number of criteria. Development of the VIKOR method began with the fol-lowing form of Lp-metric (Ho et al., 2011):

Lp k¼ Xn j¼1 wj fj fkj . f j fj h ip ( )1=p ; ð16Þ

where 1 6 p 6 1; k = 1, 2, . . . , m; weight wjis derived from the ANP.

To formulate the ranking and gap measure Lp¼1

k (as Sk) and Lp¼1k (as

Qk) are used by VIKOR (Opricovic, 1988; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2002,

2004, 2007; Tzeng, Lin, & Opricovic, 2005; Tzeng, Teng, Chen, & Opricovic, 2002).

(9)

Sk¼ Lp¼1k ¼ Xn j¼1 wj fj fkj . f j f j h i ; ð17Þ Qk¼ Lp¼1k ¼ maxj fj fkj . f j f j jj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n n o : ð18Þ

The compromise solution minkLpkshowed the synthesized gap to be

the minimum and will be selected for its value to be the closest to the aspired level. Besides, the group utility is emphasized when p is small (such as p = 1); on the contrary, if p tends to become inﬁnite, the individual maximal regrets/gaps obtain more importance in prior improvement (Freimer & Yu, 1976; Yu, 1973) in each dimen-sion/criterion. Consequently, minkSkstresses the maximum group

utility; however, minkQk accents on the selecting the minimum

from the maximum individual regrets/gaps. The compromise rank-ing algorithm VIKOR has four steps accordrank-ing to the above men-tioned ideas.

Step 1: Obtain an aspired or tolerable level. We calculated the best f

j values (aspired level) and the worst fjvalues (tolerable

level) of all criterion functions, j = 1, 2, . . . , n. Suppose the jth function denotes beneﬁts: f

j ¼ maxkfkj and

f

j ¼ minkfkjor these values can be set by decision makers

(i.e., f

j is the aspired level and fjis the worst value).

Fur-ther, an original rating matrix can be converted into a nor-malized weight-rating matrix by using the equation:

rkj¼ fj fkj = f j fj : ð19Þ

Step 2: Calculate mean of group utility and maximal regret. The val-ues can be computed respectively by Sk¼Pnj¼1wjrkj (the

synthesized gap for all criteria) and Qk= maxj

{rkjjj = 1, 2, . . . , n} (the maximal gap in k criterion for prior

improvement).

Step 3: Calculate the index value. The value can be counted by Rk=

v

(Sk S⁄)/(S S⁄) + (1

v

)(Qk Q⁄)/(Q Q⁄), where

k = 1, 2, . . . , m. S⁄_{= min}

iSior setting S⁄= 0 and S= maxiSi

or setting S_{= 1; Q}⁄_{= min}

iQi or setting Q⁄= 0 and

Q_{= max}

iQior setting Q= 1; and v is presented as the

weight of the strategy of the maximum group utility. Therefore, we also can re-write Rk= vSk+ (1 v)Qk, when

S⁄_{= 0, S}_{= 1, Q}⁄_{= 0 and Q}_{= 1.}

Step 4: Rank or improve the alternatives for a compromise solution. Order them decreasingly by the value of Sk, Qkand Rk.

Pro-pose as a compromise solution the alternative (A(1)_{) which}

is arranged by the measure min{Rkjk = 1, 2, . . . , m} when the

two conditions are satisﬁed: C1. Acceptable advantage: R(A(2)_{) R(A}(1)_{) P 1/(m 1), where A}(2)_{is the second}

posi-tion in the alternatives ranked by R. C2. Acceptable stability in decision making: Alternative A(1)_{must also be the best}

ranked by Sk or/and Qk. When one of the conditions is

not satisﬁed, a set of compromise solutions is selected. The compromise solutions are composed of: (1) Alterna-tives A(1)_{and A}(2)_{if only condition C2 is not satisﬁed, or}

(2) Alternatives A(1)_{, A}(2)_{, . . . , A}(M)_{if condition C1 is not}

sat-isﬁed. A(M) is calculated by the relation R(A(M)_{) R(A}(1)_{) < 1/(m 1) for maximum M (the positions}

of these alternatives are close).

The compromise-ranking method (VIKOR) is applied to deter-mine the compromise solution and the solution is adoptable for decision-makers in that it offers a maximum group utility of the majority (shown by min S), and a maximal regret of minimum indi-viduals of the opponent (shown by min Q). This model utilizes the DEMATEL and ANP processes in Sections 3.1 and 3.2to get the weights of criteria with dependence and feedback and employs the VIKOR method to acquire the compromise solution.

4. The empirical case of electronic manufacturing industry

In this Section, an empirical study is displayed to illustrate the application of the proposed model for evaluating and ﬁnding the key success factors of brand marketing which will help to create brand value.

4.1. Background and problem descriptions

In the recent years, the lower value-added of assembly, and the resources allocation biased towards assembly in Taiwan’s indus-tries, it’s become a problem to concerned about Taiwan’s industries development in the future, Taiwan’s industries must to be up-graded by toward to brand marketing and R&D in order to inte-grate the Taiwan’s superior resources to amplify the strength and the kinetic energy that Taiwan’s industries have accumulated. According to the information of the website of Branding Taiwan in 2010, it noted that after a successful transition from Original Equipment Manufactures (OEM) to Original Design Manufacture (ODM), Taiwan is currently making great progress in evolving itself and entering into the era of Own Branding & Manufacturing (OBM), or Original Brand Manufacturing. In order to facilitate Taiwanese enterprises in shifting to international branding, advance the growth and development of brands, as well as create a more con-ducive environment for brands to grow, the Ministry of Economic Affairs of Taiwan carried out the Executive Yuan’s ‘‘Branding Tai-wan Plan’’ in 2006. In addition, the Image Enhancement Plan (IEP) was incorporated into this plan, speeding up the globalization of Taiwan businesses and boosting their determination for market competitiveness. Thus, the image and brands of Taiwan enterprises can be greatly enhanced, creating an even more favorable environ-ment for international branding efforts. Moreover, in this study we take the electronic manufacturing industry for example to demon-strate how will the enterprise to create brand values by brand mar-keting and base on the MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR to ﬁnd the best strategy and improve ways.

4.2. Data collection

A questionnaire was used to gather information from experts with professional knowledge and managerial experience, espe-cially those with knowledge of marketing. These experts were managers and scholars of marketing. Furthermore, the background of expert is described as follows: managers of marketing are good at marketing analysis; scholars of marketing are those who special-ize in the management of marketing and the teaching of marketing courses in a university. On the other hand, we also investigated 35 customers who have using the samples’ products over 3 years to know their satisfaction of brand marketing in the 3 chosen compa-nies which with good reputation in electronic manufacturing in Taiwan in this study. A total of 50 subjects were divided into seven managers and eight scholars and 35 customers. This investigation was carried out in November 2009, and it took 40–80 min for everyone to fill out the questionnaire and to be interviewed. The inconsistent rate of these questionnaires is 3.8%, under 5%, which means additional questionnaires for this study will not influence the findings; and the credibility is 96.20%.

4.3. Measuring relationships among dimensions and criteria by DEMATEL

The aim is not only determine the most important factors of brand marketing but also measure the relationships among dimen-sions and criteria. The marketing experts were thus asked to deter-mine the importance of the relationships among the dimensions

(10)

and criteria. The averaged initial direct-relation 13 13 matrix A (Table 2), obtained by pair-wise comparisons in terms of inﬂuences

and directions between criteria. As matrix A shows, the normalized direct-relation D (Table 3) is calculated from Eqs. (1)–(3). Then,

Table 2

The initial inﬂuence matrix A for criteria.

Note:Inconsistent rate (%) = 1 nðn1Þ Pn i¼1 Pn j¼1 ðd15ij d14ijÞ=d15ij h i 100% ¼ 3:8% <5% Credibility = 1–3.8% (inconsistent rate) = 96.20%

Table 3

The normalized direct-inﬂuence matrix D for criteria.

Table 4

The total-inﬂuence matrix Tcfor criteria.

Table 5

The total-inﬂuence matrix TDfor dimensions.

Dimensions Product strategy Price strategy Channel strategy Communication strategy

Product strategy 0.732 0.691 0.683 0.708

Price strategy 0.755 0.666 0.693 0.714

Channel strategy 0.710 0.650 0.627 0.668

(11)

using Eq.(4), total inﬂuence Tc(Table 4) and TD(Table 5) is derived

and by using Eq.(6)the IRM was constructed by the r and c in the total direct-inﬂuence matrix Tcand TD(Table 6) as showed inFigs. 2

and 3.

4.4. Weighting of each criterion by combining the DEMATEL with ANP methods (DANP Technique)

The DANP technique combines the DEMATEL technique with the ANP method. The DEMATEL technique was developed by the Battelle Geneva Institute: (1) to analyze complex real dealing mainly with interactive map-model techniques (Gabus & Fontela, 1972); and (2) to evaluate qualitative and factor-linked aspects of societal problems. After determining the relationship structure between the factors of brand marketing, the ANP method is applied to obtain criteria influence-weights. The traditional ANP method is used to derive the weighted supermatrix by transforming each col-umn to sum exactly to unity. Each element in a colcol-umn is divided by the number of clusters so each column will exactly sum to unity. Using this normalization method implies each cluster has the same influence-weights (Ou Yang, Leu, & Tzeng, 2008). How-ever, we know the degrees of influence of the factors on each other are different fromTable 6. Therefore, using the traditional normal-ized method is irrational. In this research, we combined the DEM-ATEL technique to solve this problem, which is used to obtain the normalized matrix Tc. We first normalized the total-influence

ma-trix T. By calculating the limiting power of the weighted

superma-trix, limh?1 (Wa)h is applied until a steady-state condition is

reached (Tables 7–12). Each row represents the weight of each cri-terion. As seen in theTable 11, results showed that experts were most concerned with value pricing (0.123) and consumer’s price perception (0.120) and least concerned with personal selling (0.047). From the standpoint of dimensions, experts considered the ﬁrst important strategy among the four strategies is product strategy, and the criterion of perceived quality as important, sec-ond is communication strategy, and the criterion of promotions as important; third is price strategy, and the criterion of value pric-ing as important; fourth is channel strategy, and the criterion of push and pull as important. This ﬁnding revealed that the experts believed value pricing could not be overlooked by planners when planning brand marketing. Besides, the synthesized scores which received from DANP method were then calculated to derive the to-tal satisfaction and performance by SAW and VIKOR methods. We calculated the highest total satisfaction of the three companies by SAW method. The results showed the highest total satisfaction was in F2company, followed by F1company and F3company. Moreover,

we calculated the gaps between the criteria by VIKOR method in order to know the three companies’ performance of brand market-ing and to know the compromise rankmarket-ing. The results demon-strated that the total gaps were highest in F3company, followed

by F1company and F2company (Table 12).

4.5. Discussions and implications

InTable 6, we know the degrees of inﬂuence of criteria are dif-ferent with each other. The cluster-weighted supermatrix that was obtained by using traditional average method (equal cluster-weighted) in ANP is irrational. Therefore, the normalized matrix Tc, which is obtained inﬂuential cluster-weighted by DEMATEL

method results, is combined to the procedure of the ANP method in this study. By combining DEMATEL and ANP methods, we found value pricing which weighted 0.123 is the most important factor for creating brand value. A price is playing an important role for products, which will influence the perception of the products to consumers and also directly influence the profit to enterprises. When consumers purchase an item they sometimes take the price for consideration, some consumers will prefer the low price not be-cause the brand, quality and other factors; others are prefer the high price or brand, because they think the high price means the high quality. But enterprises can’t always use the low price or high price strategy to satisfy customers, they should provide the values of products which the consumers will be willing to buy, and the va-lue perceptions of products is different to each customer, therefore,

Table 6

The sum of inﬂuences given and received on dimensions and criteria.

Dimensions/criteria ri ci ri+ ci ri ci

Product strategy 2.814 2.962 5.776 0.148

Perceived quality 9.210 10.042 19.252 0.832

Perceived value 9.010 9.474 18.484 0.464

Enhance the consumer experience 9.265 9.458 18.723 0.193

Price strategy 2.828 2.711 5.539 0.117

Consumer’s price perception 9.247 8.778 18.025 0.469

Value pricing 9.249 8.973 18.222 0.276

Channel strategy 2.655 2.702 5.357 0.047

Direct and indirect channels 8.441 8.757 17.198 0.316

Push and pull 8.260 8.975 17.235 0.715

Channel support 9.247 8.690 17.937 0.557

Communication strategy 2.869 2.791 5.660 0.078

Advertisement 9.840 9.086 18.926 0.754

Sales promotions 8.941 9.640 18.581 0.699

Event marketing and sponsorship 8.641 9.068 17.709 0.427

Public relations and propaganda material 9.053 9.053 18.105 0.000

Personnel sale 10.035 8.446 18.481 1.589

Fig. 2. The impact-relations-map of relations within dimensions of brand marketing.

(12)

enterprise must be aware the price express an products informa-tion to customers. Moreover, in this consumer-oriented era, the customer’s perceived value is the key factor when decided a price to the products; thus, enterprises should not always based on the consideration of costs instead the customer’s perceived value to decided the price. In addition, we can improve the problems of brand marketing based on the impact-relations-map (Fig. 2), which utilized the DEMATEL method to understand the interaction be-tween dimensions and criteria. In the impact-relations-map, (ri+ ci) provides an index of the strength of inﬂuences given and

re-ceived, that is, (ri+ ci) shows the degree that each dimension and

criteria play in the problem. If (ri ci) is positive, then each

dimen-sion and criterion is affecting other factors, and if (ri ci) is

nega-tive, then each dimension and criterion is being inﬂuenced by other factors. By (ri+ ci) and (ri ci) inFig. 2, we can determine

the price strategy should ﬁrst to be improved, second is communi-cation strategy, because both are inﬂuence other strategies most, that is, if enterprises plan the price strategy and communication strategy well, it will make other two strategies be better, they also can begin on the criteria of consumer’s price perception to improve

Fig. 3. The impact-relations-map of relations within criteria of brand marketing.

Table 7

(13)

the price strategy and criteria of personal selling, advertisement to improve communication strategy (seeFig. 3). As seen inFig. 2, it also determine the product strategy is being inﬂuenced most, that is, the product strategy in the four strategies represents an

impor-tant problem which should pay more attentions, and enterprises can improve it by criterion of enhancing the consumer experience. In addition, the results showed that the highest total satisfaction was in F2company, followed by F1 company and F3company. It

also showed that product strategy almost obtained the highest sat-isfaction in the three companies. On the other hand, we found that the lowest satisfaction of the three companies almost in the sales promotion and personnel sale that means both are need to be im-proved. Furthermore, the compromise ranking by VIKOR method showed which dimension and criterion is close to the aspiring le-vel, and we can see their gaps clearly. InTable 12, it showed the total gaps were lowest in F2company, which is close to the aspiring

level, and the dimension of product strategy and the criterion of

Table 8

The unweighted supermatrix W.

Note: W ¼ ðTacÞ 0 .

Table 9 The new matrix Ta

Dobtained by matrix TD. Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4 D1 0.260 0.245 0.243 0.252 D2 0.267 0.235 0.245 0.253 D3 0.267 0.245 0.236 0.252 D4 0.267 0.245 0.244 0.244 Table 10

Weighting the unweighted supermatrix based on total-inﬂuence normalized matrix Wa.

Note: Wa_{¼ T}a

DW.

Table 11