59-05-032 Proceeding

136 Proceedings of the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Congress the ways a brand association is shaped and the force of the relationship (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995: Keller and Lehman, 2003 and Pike et al., 2010). The influence of brand’s robust presence and recognition in the customers’ mind is known as brand awareness (Aaker, 1991). Brand awareness is a prime prerequisite for brand equity, without which, customers cannot relate themselves with a brand, sees its quality and not one or the other turns into a brand loyal consumer (Pappu and Quester, 2006). D. Brand Reputation Hellier et al. (2003) defined brand reputation as the understanding of value connected with the brand name. Fombrun et al., (2004) mentioned that brand reputation refers to esteem judgments around a brand’s qualities, reliability and dependability developed over time. Markwick and Fill (1997) proposed that brand reputation is more solid than brand image. Also, Aaker and Keller (1990) described that brand reputation was characterized as an issue of value connected with name, reputations is an idea identified with (yet not the same as) image and includes an untouchable’s subjective judgment of an association’s qualities regarding its (perceived) past execution.These evaluations of past activitiesmay be gotten fromindividual experience, yet similarly could come about because of informal data such as word-of-mouth (Fombrum and Shanley, 1990). A business firm, service or brand with a good reputation picks up competitive advantage autonomously of different contemplations, including non-appearance of direct knowledge of managing the supplying (Wilson, 1985). Hence, a reputation needs to develop over time. E. Performance Quality Oliver (1980) suggested that, to evaluate performance quality of a product and/or service, customers require a standard for what is acceptable or good or adequate. The brand name may generate certain desires in that heading. Whereas, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) revealed that there is, however almost no hypothetical motivation to accept that customers use focal brand desires to judge performance quality after purchase. Customers are, subsequently, liable to utilize different sorts of performancemeasures in the post-buy assessment. Cadotte et al. (1987) proposed two separate standards customers may use as the “ideal” for the act of comparing. To begin with this, the first standard may be the ordinary performance of a specific brand, for example the most favoured, the last obtained, the most famous, or other. A second possibility is that the standard may be an average performance which a customer accepts is average for a gathering for comparable brands inside a product classification, along these lines a product standard. Involvement with and information of the product class or related products might, hence, be a critical determinant of how customers judge a product and/or service performance quality. F. Perceived Quality Perceived quality refers to the customers’ perceptions and judgments about a product performance (Zeithaml, 1988). Cronin and Taylor (1992) also defined that reliability, durability, appearance and performance are certain attributes which are to be considered in measuring the