【作者】 倪慧君；

【导师】 王兴元；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 企业管理， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 作为经济主导力量的高科技产业,发展品牌为主导的战略尤为重要。产品越趋向于高科技,越需要建立一套一致性且标准化的品牌。高科技产品附加值高,具有高复杂性,顾客购买时知觉风险大,因此品牌成为消费者购买产品时重要依据。由北京数字100市场咨询公司和搜狐公司合作进行的与电脑相关的品牌消费调查显示,消费者对电脑相关产品选择存在品牌趋优现象,同一类产品中对品牌信赖差距明显,这一现象表明品牌资产已经成为高科技企业重要的战略资产。有关品牌管理的文献表明,国外的品牌研究存在从局部到整体、从概念到结构,从分散到系统的发展规律。品牌早期研究主要集中在产品层次的品牌概念及要素的研究;逐步发展到品牌及绩效的概念和测量,从而基本形成了一条较为完整的研究脉络。但涉及到品牌资产测量与管理的研究仍存在很多不足。首先,现有文献的研究没有厘清品牌资产的不同构面,将品牌驱动因素、品牌资产表现因素等放在同一个层面进行探讨,势必导致研究结论的不统一。本研究在构建品牌资产价值测量模型时,首先探究品牌资产价值形成的逻辑框架,将企业品牌投入端、顾客表现端、产品市场端、企业财务绩效几个方面按照价值形成的系统模型理顺出来,形成一个反映品牌资产价值形成前后前因联系的品牌资产价值测量模型。其二,现有品牌资产价值测量模型存在很多不足。以Interbrand为代表的权威测量模型中有两个重要的变量:品牌作用指数——该指数直接决定了企业多大比例的财务绩效由品牌资产贡献;品牌强度——该数值直接决定了未来财务绩效的实现程度,这两个变量都存在很大的缺陷,导致该模型的可信性和有效性受到很多学者和实务界人士的质疑。因此,如何有效地测量高科技企业品牌资产的价值成为一个紧迫而棘手的课题。本研究期待在品牌财务绩效测量和品牌强度测量这两个方面做出有价值的探索研究。其三,目前大多数文献研究是基于顾客的视角展开。顾客对品牌资产的认识和评判,更多地取决于自身的认知水平、知识结构和个性偏好等方面的约束,导致该视角的结论犹如盲人摸象,因此并没有形成统一的品牌资产市场表现测量维度。本研究拟构建一全面的品牌资产市场表现测量维度。其四,目前有关品牌强度因子测量模型研究甚少。在现有的实证和理论研究中往往都将品牌强度因素作为平行的变量进行刻画,而忽略了其中的不同层次。这部分研究的缺乏使品牌强度研究成果对实践的指导缺乏系统性,从而导致广告战、价格战等基于某一局部品牌或营销理论的短视企业行为广泛发生。因此,需要对品牌强度因子与品牌价值内部的结构关系进行研究,构建合理的品牌强度测量模型。针对目前的研究现状,品牌资产研究有四大迫切需要解决的问题:一是建立高科技品牌资产价值测量的系统模型。二是对高科技企业品牌资产的市场表现进行不同维度的完整刻画;三是构建品牌资产作用指数测量模型,实现对品牌资产财务绩效测量;四是对高科技品牌资产强度因子进行分析、验证和测量。本文在综合归纳前人研究成果及专业访谈的基础上,以规范分析和实证分析相结合的方法,对高科技产业品牌资产价值测量进行了探索性研究。本文主要工作包括:第一,对高科技企业品牌资产价值的相关理论和实证研究进行梳理和评述。第二,在文献研究的基础上,分析了高科技品牌资产市场表现测量维度。在该部分,本研究首先基于Porter竞争优势理论、价值链理论和利益相关者理论明确地刻画了高科技企业品牌的知识构面,解析了高科技企业的品牌资产市场表现构面:品牌资产市场绩效、品牌资产创新绩效和品牌资产扩张绩效。并采用品牌资产的三价值构面对品牌资产发展现状进行了剖析。第三,通过高科技企业品牌作用指数模型、品牌超额盈利能力测量模型和品牌扩张能力测量模型的构建,实现了品牌资产的财务绩效测量。使得企业不仅可以进行品牌资产日常的市场管理,也可以进行品牌资产的财务评价。第四,通过对高科技品牌部分企业进行访谈,提炼出品牌强度因子,构建了品牌强度的测量模型。品牌强度因子分为6个,该6个因子不是直接对品牌价值产生影响的,其内部存在一定的因果关系。其中,基础设施投资资本通过创新资本、营销支持资本和品牌管理流程资本对品牌价值产生作用。第五,建立了高科技企业品牌资产价值测量模型以衡量品牌资产价值的大小,并利用该模型测算了IT企业的品牌价值,以指导IT企业合理地分配品牌资源,并管理和优化品牌资产。本文在构建高科技企业品牌资产价值测量模型时,克服了以往品牌资产的研究局部的、割裂的缺陷,对品牌强度因子、品牌市场表现以及品牌资产财务价值作了整合研究,形成了具有逻辑层次、因果链条关系的结构模型。本文的研究主要创新成果如下:第一,刻画了高科技品牌资产的市场表现维度。该维度由创新绩效、扩张绩效和市场绩效的三成分构成。通过对品牌资产市场表现测量,企业可以有效诊断和管理品牌资产。对于品牌资产的绩效强势方面加以引导和发展,识别出弱势维度,进行强化管理。第二,建立了高科技品牌资产财务绩效测量模型。在Interbrand测量模型中,一个很大缺陷是品牌作用因子无法确定。本文通过建立品牌作用指数测量模型、品牌超额盈利能力测量模型和品牌扩张能力测量模型实现了品牌财务绩效的测量与评估。第三,开发了品牌强度因子测量量表,并构建了高科技企业品牌强度因子测量模型。本研究首先利用企业能力优势和市场竞争优势建立了品牌强度因子:人力资本、品牌管理流程资本、品牌发展趋势资本、创新资本、基础设施资本和营销支持资本强度。继而通过SEM模型检验了6个品牌强度因子的品牌价值作用机理,开发了高科技企业品牌强度因子测量模型。本研究发现高科技企业的品牌强度因子不是直接作用于品牌资产价值的,而是存在一定的内部驱动关系。其中基础设施资本通过品牌管理流程资本、创新资本和营销支持资本影响到品牌价值。考虑到文献对高科技品牌资产价值理论和实证研究的缺乏,本文将品牌资产研究视角和实证对象定位于高科技产业市场,丰富了品牌研究的视角。但在现实中,不同行业、企业和顾客特征以及经济、技术、文化、社会环境的不同,导致各影响因素的作用水平和作用方式存在差异。因此,难以将所有影响因素都纳入研究视野。并且,受到样本数量、抽样方法的限制以及统计分析技术和横断面研究固有缺陷的制约,实证研究的结论不能确定是否适用于所有的高科技企业研究对象。本文属于探索性研究,进一步的验证和更广范围的应用还有待理论与实证研究地进一步深入。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is stragetic choice to develop brand for High-Tech industry,which is leading force of economy. The more products tend to be high-tech, the more brand should be consistent and standardizaed. With attributes of high value-added, high complexity and high perceiving risk, so its brand becomes high induction. The survey about High-Tech brand product by Beijing Digital 100 and Sohu.com Inc.So shows that the choice of High-Tech product tends to gifted brands, trust to top brand is obvious. So brands have become a important stragetic asset of High-Tech enterprises.Literature about brand research shows that the law exsist in studies about brand equity that is from local to whole, from concept to manufacture, from dispersion to system. Now research basically formes a relatively complete sequence from early focusing on brand concepts of product level to concern concept and measurement of brand performance now. However, studies on brand equity measurement and management is still significant deficiency.First of all, there is a logic-level, a causal chain relationship in the formation of brand equity. Researchers often do not clarify the differences among brand equity dimensions, driving factors, brand equity performance and other factors, which lead to contusion of study range. In this study, the first step is to explore the logical framework of brand equity formation from enterprise input, customers performance, product market to enterprise financial performance, and then to design different performance demension. Eventually brand equity value measurement model is formed.Secondly, studies on brand equity measurement mostly exist inherent deficiencies, which also exists in Interbrand model,the authoritative method. There are two flaws in Interbrand model: branding index,which determines the proportion of the enterprise’s financial contribution to earnings from the brand equity; brand strength index, which determines directly the extent to which future financial value be realized. These flaws directly led its credibility to be questioned from academics and practitioners. Therefore, it becomes urgent and difficult to effectively assess the value of enterprise brand equity.Thirdly, the result of the existing research basing on customer’s perspective depends on customer’s cognitive level, knowledge structure, personality preferences and other constraints, are not united.Fourthly, it is much inadequate how to measure brand intensity factors. it is unreasonable that brand intensity factors parallelly affect brand value with the neglect of different influence degree in empirical research and theoretical studies, which results in the lack of systematic guidance,and results in ad war, price war. Therefore, the relationships between brand value and intensity should be explored to identify various influence degree by brand intensity factors, and then a reasonable model to measure brand intensity should be built.Three urgent problems should be solved based on current research: the first, it necessary to build the causal chain system model of brand equity measurement and then to verify the system model. the second, brand equity market dimensions need to be completely characterized; the third, a model to meaure brand financial performance should be construct ;Fourth,brand equity driver factors is be explored and measured.In this paper, with the synthesis of previous studies, with the professional interview and with the combination of positive versus normative analysis, exploratory research on brand equity value measurement in High-Tech industries is carried out. This paper mainly includes the followings:Firstly, the paper comments on and sort out theory and empirical research on brand value of High-Tech enterprises;Secondly, we analysis brand equity market dimensions on High-Tech brand equity. Firstly, this study depicts a specific brand quity knowledge dimensions of High-Tech enterprises, basing on Porter’s Competitive Advantage Theory, Value Chain Theory and Stakeholder Theory. Then the paper analyzes brand equity market dimensions of High-Tech enterprises:Market Performance and Innovation Performance and Expansion Performance, which provides a tool to figurate brand equity development situation.Thirdly, this article establishes the model of financial performance with brand index,which provides a tool not only to manage brand equity but also to evaluate brand value. It is more simple to pratice brand management.Fourthly, the paper conducts a brand intensity measurement model from the practice of business management activities with some of High-Tech brand enterprises interviews. Six dimensions of brand intensity factors are formated, by which brand intensity factors are measured. Brand intensity factors exsist certain causal relationship in internal structure, not directly on the brand value with structural equation model..Fifthly, the paper establishes a brand value measurement model basing on the aforementioned research results, to guide the enterprise to rationally allocate resources and optimize the enterprise’s brand equity. The paper adopts the model to measure brand value of computer enterprises.The formation of brand value is a logic-level, causal chain relationship. Previous research describe brand equity drive dimension with partial and fragmented defects,which result in ad war, price war. Therefore, this paper integrates brand drivers, brand performance and brand value, to constitute a system assessment modei,which enables enterprises to allocate resources. The main innovation of this study is as follows:Firstly, High-Tech brand market demension variables are analysized: Innovation performance, expansion performance and market performance. Enterprises can diagnosize and management brand equity effectively with this market measurement model.Sencondly, the paper builds a model to measure brand financial performance. In Interbrand’s model, a major defect is that brand index can not be determined. The paper establishes brand index measurement model, abnormal-return measurement model and brand extension measurement model,which allow enterprise not only to carry out market status quo effectively, but also effectively to measure financial performance.Thirdly, brand intensity measurement model is analysized. Brand intensity factors of High-Tech enterprises are divided into six dimensions: the staff capital, brand development potential capital, infrastructure capital and brand process capital, innovation capital and market-supporting capital, which form High-Tech enterprise brand intensity factors. Infrastructure capital influences brand value by brand process capital , innovation capital and market-supporting capital.There is lack in High-Tech brand equity value research. In this paper, brand equity research positions in the High-Tech industries, which enrichs research perspective. But in reality, products, business, industry and customer characteristics, as well as economic, technological, cultural, and social environment are different from the level and mode of action of impact of factors. Therefore, it is difficult to include all the influencing factors in the study horizon. And, by the restrictions of the sample size, sampling methods and statistical analysis of technology and inherent defects of cross-sectional study, empirical research should not determine whether the conclusions apply to other study. This article is exploratory research, further verification and applications need to be carried on as theoretical and empirical studies is advanced in-depth.更多还原