Consumer-based brand equity in the television industry: a study of a private TV channel in Turkey.
Eser, Zeliha ; Pinar, Musa ; Girard, Tulay 等
INTRODUCTION
The recent technological advancements and lower financial entry
barriers into the media industry have led to changes in practices of
mass communication (Oyedeji, 2007). The current media environment is
able to deliver specialized content to niche audiences in various
formats through a large number of media channels (Goldstein, 2004). Not
only the new media vehicles (e.g., blogs, satellite radio, podcasts,
online video and news sources, etc.) and traditional media types (radio,
television, magazines, and newspapers) presently compete for audiences
and advertising revenues, but also the competition among the traditional
media vehicles has become more intense. As a result, media organizations
found themselves forced to adopt strategic management decisions and
practices that had been once commonly used for the marketing of consumer
products (Oyedeji, 2007). Television networks (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC) have
long sought to differentiate their products on the basis of functional
attributes such as content features and presentation. That is because
gaining competitive advantages based on only product attributes (e.g.,
news, entertainment and sports) has become harder due to the increase in
media outlets and fragmentation of audiences. Consequently, the
television networks have to find ways of building distinctive and
meaningful brand images in the minds of news audiences (Chan Olmsted and
Cha, 2008).
IMPORTANCE OF BRANDING IN A DEVELOPING MARKET
While brand consultants emphasize the importance of branding,
television networks shift their focus from their earnings per share to
long-term shareholder value. Branding has become more important than
programming because the value of a successful brand lasts longer and is
higher than a program (Ryan, 1999; Chan-Olmsted and Cha, 2007). Yang and
Tso (2007, p. 19) affirm that "In the field of media management,
understanding consumer acceptance of media products is becoming a
central issue in the face of audience fragmentation and media
globalization." Prior research concludes that international
television programs in general moved from more advanced and culturally
dominant countries to developing or less developed countries (Chadha and
Kavoori, 2000; Chung 2005; Yang and Tso, 2007).
As one of the developing countries, Turkey is a great example of a
market to study because of the rapid growth in the TV network industry.
Since the first domestic television transmission signal was received in
Turkey in 1968, the state-owned Turkish Radio and Television Corporation
(TRT) held its monopoly position without facing any competition until
1990. However, after 1990, the Turkish TV industry experienced a boom of
private TV channels in Turkey. This new era brought changes in the areas
of production techniques and formats, and content of programs.
Consequently, in 3-5 year span, the Turkish TV and Broadcasting industry
became very competitive, offering new and interesting program formats.
According to an OECD 1999 report (Hurriyet, 1999), Turkish Radio and TV
industry experienced record growth during 1995-1997, with a two-year
growth rate of 24.3%, compared to the 3.4 % OECD average. The same
report indicates that the revenue in the Turkish Radio and TV industry
grew at the annual rate of 26.6%, growing from $341.2 million in 1995 to
$546.81 million in 1997. The growth of the Turkish Radio and TV industry
continues today, making the industry even more competitive than it was
in the 1990s. In 2009, the number of TV channels reached 199 (national,
local and thematic). The rising number of the TV channels has
intensified the competition in the Turkish TV industry which increased
the importance of branding and the brand equity concept among TV
channels in developing and implementing their business strategies.
CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY
Branding is one of the most important management practices
(Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001; Lin, Atkin, & Abelman, 2002) in the
strategic management process for identifying a product and
distinguishing it from similar goods and services (Aaker, 1991).
Successful branding practices (e.g., differentiation, service quality)
generate customer-based brand equity (CBBE)--a concept that predicts
that consumers will react more favorably toward the product, price,
promotion, and distribution of a branded product than they would toward
a generic product in the same product category (Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993).
The importance of effective branding strategy is further emphasized
in prior research that CBBE enhances the value of products and services
(Fombrun, 1996); improves consumers' disposition toward
organizations and their products (Keller, 1993); directly affects
consumers' psychological judgment with respect to a brand, making
them favorably disposed toward paying more and searching further for the
brand (Aaker, 1991; Aaker & Biel, 1992; Tauber, 1988), and helps
organizations attain increased profitability through increased market
share and favorable price structures (Aaker, 1991).
Researchers have used brand equity theory as a theoretical lens for
studying various aspects of media management. Chan-Olmsted and Kim
(2001) surveyed media managers of commercial television stations and
found that the managers of stations agreed that branding is important,
"overall a very useful business tool" that "will help
them achieve long-term business success" and "stay
competitive" (pp. 85-86), but they associated it with tactical
operations, such as local news credibility, network affiliation image,
station promotions, and logo design, rather than considering it as a
strategic long-term management process. The researchers observed a
negative correlation between experience in the industry and perception
of the role of branding in media management. More specifically, industry
newcomers were more receptive toward the practice of branding. McDowell
and Sutherland (2000) used brand equity theory to analyze television
program brand equity and conceptualize TV program brand equity as the
outstanding audience loyalty and long-term market dominance (Oyedeji,
2007). McDowell and Sutherland (2000) concluded that each program
carries its own brand equity independent of the brand equity of the
station. Thus, programs with higher brand equity captured larger
audience size.
Brand equity means that the value for the brand is created in
consumers' mind through superior quality in the product and
service, social esteem the brand provides for users, trust in the brand,
and consumer self-identification with the brand (Schifmann and Kanuk,
2007). Keller (1993, p.2) coined the term customer-based brand equity
(CBBE) and defined it as "the differential effect of brand
knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand."
Aaker (1991) states that brand equity is a set of assets (or
liabilities), and consists of brand awareness, brand associations,
perceived quality, and brand loyalty that are important to customers.
In the literature, brand equity has been measured with multiple
dimensions such as brand awareness (Aaker, 1991), perceived quality
(Aaker, 1991, 1996, Yoo et al., 2000), brand loyalty (Yoo et al., 2000;
Yoo and Donthu, 2001), brand image, brand association, brand personality
(Aaker, 1997), and organizational association (Aaker 1996). Aaker (1996,
p. 10) defines brand awareness as the "strength of a brand's
presence in the consumers' mind." Perceived quality is defined
as the consumer's perception of the quality or superiority of a
product/brand with respect to its intended purpose compared to its
alternatives (Aaker, 1991, p. 85; Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3). It is based on
purchasers' or users' subjective evaluations of product and/or
service quality. In this study, because TV channels offer services that
are intangible, consumers' perceived service quality could be an
important factor for a TV channel's brand equity. Brand loyalty is
defined as "the attachment that a customer has to a brand"
(Aaker, 1991, p. 39). Following Kim and Kim (2004), the authors of this
study also included brand image as one of the brand equity dimensions.
Brand image is defined as "a set of brand associations, usually in
some meaningful way" (Aaker, 1991, p. 109). Aaker (1991, p. 109)
defines brand association as "any link in memory to a brand."
According to Aaker (1991) and Aaker and Keller (1990), the associations
with a brand will be stronger when it is based on many experiences or
exposure than when it is based on few. Brand image consists of three
dimensions of brand associations--brand's favorability, strength,
and distinctiveness (Kim and Kim, 2004). Organizational associations are
the customers' beliefs that an organization that markets the brand
is honest, trustworthy and cares about its customers (Netemeyer et al.,
2004). Because organizational associations are an idiosyncratic
component of brand equity, they cannot be easily mimicked by other
brands. Therefore, strong positive organizational associations can
provide the company a competitive advantage (Sinha et al., 2008).
STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study examines the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) of a
private TV channel, Kanal B, in Turkey. The specific objectives of the
study are to determine: 1) which of the brand equity aspects the
viewers' perceive that Kanal B performs well; 2) how the programs
the viewers like differ based on the viewers' demographic
characteristics, and what demographic characteristics of the viewers
influence their liking of the programs that Kanal B broadcasts, and 3)
how the CBBE aspects that are perceived as being performed well by Kanal
B differ based on the viewers' demographic characteristics. Drawing
from the literature, brand equity was measured with brand awareness,
perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand image, brand association, and
organizational association. The study presents the results of the CBBE
survey and discusses the managerial implications of the CBBE findings in
developing effective marketing and positioning strategies.
METHODOLOGY
In order to accomplish the study objectives, a survey instrument
was designed to measure the CBBE, which included multiple-item scales
for each dimension of the brand equity. These scale measures were
compiled from the literature (e.g., Aaker, 1991; 1996; Kim and Kim,
2006; Pappu et al. 2006; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). In
order to measure brand awareness, respondents were asked to write down
the name of a TV channel in Turkey that came first to their mind. This
was an un-aided recall question aimed to measure the top-of-mind brand
recall (Aaker, 1991). Perceived quality was measured with nine items
that were adapted from Aaker (1991, 1996), Pappu et al. (2006) and Yoo
et al. (2001). A six-item scale for brand image was adapted from Kim and
Kim (2004). Brand association was measured in two parts; brand
personality (two items) and organizational association (nine items) for
which the scale items were adapted from (Pappu et al., 2006). Measures
for brand loyalty (six items) were adapted from Kim and Kim (2004), Yoo
et al. (2000), Yoo and Donthu (2001). The measures for perceived
quality, brand image, brand association, and brand loyalty were measured
on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to
4=strongly agree. The main reason for using a four-point scale was that
the authors wanted to avoid neutral responses and force the respondents
to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with the items.
The survey instrument was developed in Turkish, but the scales
items were compiled from the literature in English. Therefore, these
scale items were translated into Turkish, and then they were later
translated back into English to avoid translation errors (Ball et al.,
2002) and to make sure that the intended meanings of the questions were
maintained. The Turkish version of the instrument was pilot-tested with
several faculty members in order to assure the appropriateness and
consistency of the scale items. Based on their suggestions, the
instrument was further improved and refined. The survey also included
demographic questions of age, gender, education level, occupation,
marital status, having children, and income level. These questions were
asked to examine if the demographic profiles of customers influenced
their perceptions of the Kanal B's brand equity.
Sample and data collection
An online survey instrument was administered to Kanal B viewers.
The respondents were invited via an email cover letter and asked to
click on a link to access the questionnaire. Because the study examines
the CBBE dimensions for Kanal B viewers, the database containing the
email addresses of 12,000 Kanal B's viewers was utilized and the
sample was selected randomly. In 14 days, 243 completed surveys were
received. After two follow up email reminders, a total of 411 usable
surveys were obtained for analysis. The sample characteristics of the
411 respondents are presented in Table 1. Among the respondents, there
were slightly more females (52%) than males (48%). The average age was
31. The ages of the respondents ranged from 15 to 49, which reflect the
age of the Turkish population using the Internet. All of the
respondents' education levels were equally distributed from high
school to master's degree. They were from all walks of life with
variety of occupations. Respondents with a household monthly income of
less than 1,000 Turkish Lira made up of 22.6 percent. However, the
majority fell between 1,000 and 3,900 TL, which is considered medium
income households in Turkey. The respondents' marital status was
almost equal between married and singles, and slightly over half of the
sample had no children (51%). The average time a respondent spent
watching TV was 2.5 hours a day. Finally, the respondents participated
from all of the 80 provinces in Turkey.
RESULTS
Brand Awareness
As one of the CBBE dimensions, brand awareness was captured by
asking the respondents to write down the first TV channel that came to
their mind. Kanal B had the highest frequency with 8.8 percent, followed
by Channel D with 8 percent, and Channel 24 with 7.8 percent, then ATV
with 7.5 and Turkish Radio Television (government broadcast) with 7.3
percent. The remaining were Show TV and SkyTurk with 6.6 percent,
Avrasya TV and ChannelTurk with 6.1 percent, TGRT News with 5.6 percent,
Ata TV with 5.1 percent, Star TV with 4.1 percent, and TV8 with 2.9
percent. It should be noted that the reason for Kanal B to have the
highest brand awareness may result from the fact that the respondents
were the viewers of the Kanal B TV station. However, the closest
competitors that challenge Kanal B in terms of brand awareness are also
identified with this question.
Consumer-based Brand Equity
The first objective of this study is to determine which of the
brand equity aspects the viewers' perceive that Kanal B performs
well. Although the analyses of the responses were conducted by using all
of the statements under each CBBE dimension, Table 2 presents only the
statements with mean values that are higher than 2.5 (the midpoint) on a
4-point scale, standard deviations, and combined percent's of the
respondents who agreed and strongly agreed with the statements in each
dimensions of CBBE. Although slightly more than half of the
viewer's felt positively about most of these aspects of Kanal B,
still the remaining half disagreed or strongly disagreed with them.
The results of the CBBE dimensions shown in Table 2 indicate the
following: 1) Four out of 9 perceived quality items have the mean values
around 2.50, indicating that Kanal B's perceived quality for these
items are better than average. In this area, the professional look of
Kanal B newscasters scored the highest. 2) The mean values for three out
of six brand loyalty items are higher than the midpoint of the scale,
where "I feel loyal to Kanal B" scored the highest. Given the
importance of loyalty for business performance, it seems that Kanal B is
fairly successful in creating brand loyalty among its viewers. 3) Three
out of six brand image items have the mean values above the midpoint of
the scale with the highest mean for "Kanal B broadcasts programs
related to political issues". These results indicate that Kanal B
has an above average image among its viewers in these areas. 4)
Concerning brand association, one of the two brand personality and four
out of eleven organizational association items have the mean values
above the midpoint of the scale. While these mean values show that Kanal
B is perceived to be above average in these items, more brand
association items that Kanal B performs are perceived below average.
Likewise, the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with some
of the CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs. Those aspects are that Kanal
B broadcasts educational (mean=2.44, ds=1.09, combined %=47.7), and
entertaining programs (mean=2.43, ds=1.11, combined %=48.2). Although
the means below the mid-point are not very low, the lower ratings still
pose an opportunity for Kanal B to improve on the educational and
entertaining programs. The mean values that are above or below the
midpoint (average) offer important information to Kanal B managers in
identifying its strengths and weaknesses as well as the strategic
opportunities and threats.
Viewers' Liking of the Kanal B Programs
The second research objective is to determine how the program types
the viewers like differ based on the viewers' demographic
characteristics. The eight program types listed were health,
documentary, educational, cultural, daily news, economy, debate, and
children's. In order to determine whether or not liking of these
different TV programs is influenced by respondents' (viewers)
demographics, mean comparisons (t-tests and one-way ANOVA) were
conducted.
ANOVA with LSD Post Hoc and t-test results indicated none of the
viewers liking of the different programs differed by gender. However,
the viewers between 15 and 19 years old seemed to like health programs
significantly more than 25-29 and 35-39 age groups. This may be because
15 to 19 year old teenagers are still new to health issues and may have
personal interest in improving their health and appearance. The age
group 25-29 liked documentary programs significantly more than the
15-19, 20-24, 30-34, and 40-44 age groups. This age group may be more
inclined toward learning about new places, cultures, history, and
politics. The 45-49 age groups liked the educational programs
significantly more than 30-34 age groups. There were no significant
differences in liking of daily news, economy, debate, cultural, and
children programs across the age categories. The viewers' education
did not make any differences in the likings of the programs by the
viewers. Viewers with higher income liked debate programs significantly
more than lower income groups. Married viewers liked educational
programs significantly more than singles, and viewers with children
liked children's programs significantly more than those without
children. All of the differences were significant at p<.05 level (see
Table 3).
As part of the second research objective, the study investigates
what demographic characteristics of the viewers influence their liking
of the programs that Kanal B broadcasts. Stepwise regressions for the
eight program types were performed separately to identify which
demographic variables determine viewers liking of the programs. The
demographic (independent) variables were age, income, marital status,
gender, have children or not, education, and number of hours of TV
watching. For health programs, only the age was a significant variable
that had a negative correlation (t = -1.97, p = 0.05, [R.sup.2] = .009).
Younger viewers seem to like the health programs more than older
audience. Marital status had a negative and significant correlation with
educational programs (t = -2.13, p = .34, [R.sup.2] = .011). This means
married audience liked educational programs more than unmarried
audience. For children's programs, two variables--hours of TV
watching (t = -2.5, p = .013) and have children or not (t = -2.2, p =
.028)--seemed to be influential variables that determine the
subscribers' likings ([R.sup.2] = .025). The viewers who have
children (1=have children, 2=do not have children) and watch fewer hours
of TV (negative correlation) liked the children's programs. The
finding, that the variance explained for the regression equations are
small but the relationships are significant at p [less than or equal to]
.05, may suggest that there may be other influential factors that are
not included in this study. For cultural, daily news, documentary,
economy, and debate programs, none of the demographic variables
determined the viewers' liking of these programs. The summary of
the regression equations and significant statistics (constant and
standardized betas) is provided in Table 4.
Consumer-based Brand Equity Perceptions
The third research objective is to determine how the CBBE aspects
that are perceived as being performed well by Kanal B differ based on
the viewers' demographic characteristics. Appendix A provides in
detail the number of respondents (N), mean (X), and standard deviation
(sd), t and p values for the t-tests, and mean differences for ANOVAs
with LSD Post Hoc test and p values for the CBBE aspects/items
(presented in Table 2) that Kanal B performs well. Table 5 summarizes
the significant relationships between the demographic variables and the
CBBE aspects that are perceived as Kanal B performs well (for details,
please see Appendix A). The findings in Table 5 indicate that the
viewers' income level and having children or not has an impact on
the awareness of Kanal B (Q1). The highest awareness is among viewers
with an income of 4,000TL (mean of 2.73) and with no children (mean of
2.65). The comparisons show significant differences between the various
income groups and between respondents with a child and no child (see
Appendix A for detailed results).
The significant demographic factors for perceived quality items are
income, marital status, hours of watching TV for Q3. Specifically,
viewers with income between 1,000 and 1,999TL agreed with the statement
(Q3), "Kanal B newscasters look professional," significantly
more than those with income 4,000TL and above. Married viewers agreed
with the statement more than singles. Also, those who watch TV about 3
to 5 hours and 8 hours or more agreed with the statement more than those
who watch TV between 6 and 8 hours a day.
Age was the only significant demographic for Q5. Viewers with ages
younger than 30 and older than 35 agreed more with the statement (Q5),
"Kanal B's newscasters are knowledgeable on the news they
present." Age, education, income, and hours of watching TV were
significant for Q7. Viewers who are in the 20 to 24 and 30 to 34 age
groups agreed with the statement (Q7), "Kanal B programs are
related to the real world," significantly more than those in the 25
to 29 age group. Those with a 4 year college degree agreed with the
statement more significantly than those with a master's degree.
Viewers whose income is between 2,000 and 2,999TL agreed more with the
statement than those whose income is between 3,000 and 3,999TL. And,
those who watch TV for 1-2 hours a day agreed with the statement more
than those who watch TV for 3-5 hours a day. Lastly, gender, age, and
hours of watching TV were significant for Q8. Males agreed with the
statement (Q8), "Kanal B's newscasters respect their audience
while broadcasting," more than female counterparts. Those in the
30-34 age group agreed with the statement more than 35-39 and 45-49 age
groups. Those who watch TV between 3 and 5 hours agreed with the
statement significantly more than those who watch 8 or more hours of TV
a day.
For brand loyalty items, the significant demographics are age,
marital status, hours of watching TV, and education. More specifically,
viewers who are in the 30-34 age group felt more loyal than the 15-29
and 35-39 age groups (Q12). Also, singles felt more loyal than the
married respondents. Viewers who watched TV for 1-2 hours felt more
loyal to Kanal B than those who watched TV for 6-8 hours a day. Viewers
with 4 year college degrees were happier with Kanal B programs than
those with high school degrees (Q14). The younger age groups (1519,
30-44) agreed that they recommend Kanal B to their friends significantly
more than the 4549 age groups (Q15).
For brand image, the significant demographics are age and education
for Q21, and age and income for Q23. Viewers in 45-49 age groups agreed
with the statement, "Kanal B programs are related to political
issues," significantly more than the 40-44 age group. High school
graduates agreed with this statement significantly more than those with
a 4 year college degree (Q21). No significant differences in the CBBE
aspects were found for the statement, "Kanal B programs make me
feel good," based on the viewers' demographics (Q22). The age
groups of 20-29 and 45-49 agreed with the statement, "Kanal
B's programs are consistent with Turkey's image," (Q23)
significantly more than the 35-39 age groups. Viewers with incomes
4,000TL and up agreed with this statement more significantly than those
that earn between 3,000 and 3,999TL.
For brand personality, the only significant demographic was hours
of TV watching for statement Q24. Those who watch TV for 3-5 hours
agreed with the statement, "Kanal B's programs can be
considered as the best quality ones," more than those who watch it
for 6-8 hours a day. For organizational association, age and marital
status were significant for Q28, age was significant for Q30, education
was significant for Q31, and income was significant for Q32. The age
group of 30-34 agreed with the statement, "Kanal B shows up-to-date
programs," significantly more than the 20-29 and 35-39 age groups.
Singles agreed with the statement Q28 significantly more than married
viewers. The age group of 25-29 watched most of the Kanal B programs on
a more regular basis than the 30-34 age group (Q30). Viewers with a
master's degree agreed with the statement, "I consider Kanal B
as a reliable source," more than those with a high school degree
(Q31). Finally, the viewers with monthly income less than 1,000TL,
between 2,000-2,999TL, and 3,000-3,999TL were more proud of being Kanal
B's audience than the 1,000-1,999TL income group (Q32).
The results indicate that the Kanal B viewers' perceptions of
the CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs well vary significantly based on
their different demographics. These differences could provide valuable
information about the demographic profiles of Kanal B viewers who have
the most and least favorable perceptions of the CBBE dimensions of Kanal
B. For example, the results for the three brand loyalty items in Table 5
and Appendix A show that: 1) The highest loyalty to Kanal B (Q12) is
among the 30-34 years old, single, and 1-2 hours of TV watching viewers;
2) The viewers with 4 years of college are the happiest with Kanal
B's programs (Q14), and 3) The viewers in the 30-40 age group are
most likely to recommend Kanal B to their friends (Q15). Similar
information can be obtained from Table 5 and Appendix A for other CBBE
items to determine the favorable and unfavorable perceptions of the CBBE
dimensions based on demographics characteristics of the viewers.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This paper examined the CBBE of a private TV channel named Kanal B
in Turkey. An online survey containing questions for the CBBE dimensions
of awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand image, and brand
associations (brand personality and organizational associations), and
demographic questions was administered to Kanal B's viewers
utilizing a customer database. The responses from 411 viewers were
analyzed to address three specific research objectives. The sample
characteristics show that Kanal B seems to have very diverse groups of
viewers, where there is no single demographic profile that dominates the
viewers. This suggests that Kanal B is being watched by almost all
population segments in Turkey.
Even though the survey was conducted using Kanal B's viewer
database, only 8.8% of the respondents indicated that Kanal B was the
first TV channel came to their mind. This suggests two things: 1) Kanal
B is not a dominant TV channel they watch, and 2) the results help
identify the close competitors among their viewers, and 3) viewers may
not be loyal to one TV channel, rather, they might be loyal to TV
programs. In this regard, Channel D, Channel 24, ATV, and Turkish Radio
Television are the main competitors of Kanal B. This could be important
information for the Kanal B managers in designing their programs to keep
the current viewers, as well as attracting new viewers. However, this
may require further research to identify the programs that attract Kanal
B viewers to the competing TV channels.
In addressing the first research objective, the authors identified
several CBBE aspects that Kanal B performed well, based on the mean
values higher than the midpoint (2.5 on a 1-4 point scale).
Specifically, the results show that Kanal B performs better than average
on four perceived quality items, three brand loyalty items, three brand
image items, and five brand association items (one brand personality and
four organizational association items). The combined percentages of
agree and strongly agree for these items are about 50% or above,
indicating that viewers have fairly good or favorable perceptions of
these CBBE aspects as they relate to Kanal B. Because other CBBE aspects
are lower than midpoint of the scale and combined percentages for
disagree and strongly disagree are below 50%, these areas may be
considered as weaknesses, thus needing an immediate attention and
challenges for Kanal B. Thus, the findings could help the Kanal B
management to determine the specific areas to pay close attention and
identify opportunities to focus on when developing new programs and
marketing strategies.
Concerning how the programs Kanal B offers that viewers like differ
based on the viewers' demographic profiles, the results in Table 3
showed significant differences for the age and the health, documentary,
and educational programs; income and the debate programs; marital status
and the educational programs, and having children or not and the
children's programs. Kanal B managers could utilize these findings
to determine which programs are more (or less) liked than other programs
by different demographic groups. This allows them to design new
product/service strategies to address these differences. Also, the
results showing no differences for the programs and demographic
variables are beneficial for managers in their decisions because they
can identify which programs are equally liked or not liked by the same
demographic groups. In addition, the regression results in Table 4 show
that: 1) age has a significant effect on liking of the health program;
2) marital status has a significant effect on liking of the educational
programs, and 3) hours of watching TV and having children have
significant effects on liking of the children's programs. The
results in Table 3 and Table 4 show that certain demographics have
strong associations with the viewers' likings of certain programs.
Therefore, Kanal B managers may have to find ways to differentiate their
programs in order to attract more of different demographic segments.
Finally, in addressing the third research objective, the results in
Table 5 (and in Appendix A) identified the influential demographic
factors that made significant differences in the CBBE aspects that Kanal
B performs well. These findings provide valuable information for the
managers of which demographic segments perceive the CBBE aspects of
Kanal B performs better. In this way, it is possible to identify the
most loyal demographic segments of Kanal B viewers.
Managerial Implications
The findings have several managerial implications for Kanal B
managers, as well as other TV Channel managers. The first implication is
that because branding is one of the most important practices in the
media environment (Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001; Lin, Atkin, &
Abelman, 2002) and its growing importance for television networks due to
the long term nature of the brands (Ryan, 1999; Chan-Olmsted and Cha,
2007), the findings of this study could help the managers of TV Channels
like Kanal B to develop branding strategies to improve their
company's brand equity. Specifically, the findings indicate the
aspects of CBBE dimensions that are favored by viewers and those not so
favored. Kanal B managers could improve on the aspects of brand equity
dimensions perceived as poorly executed, while maintaining the aspects
perceived as executed well. Other TV channels could conduct similar
branding studies to determine their target viewers' perceptions of
the aspects of their brand equity dimensions to improve or maintain.
Such a study will take the guesswork out of decision making. As
suggested by (Chan-Olmsted and Cha, 2008), Kanal B and other TV
channels' managers could build distinctive and meaningful brand
images in the minds of its audiences.
The second managerial implication deals with identifying the close
competitors and brand loyalty. Even though the study was conducted among
the Kanal B viewers, the brand awareness results indicate that Kanal B
is not the main TV channel they watch. In fact, other TV channels have
also similar viewership. This indicates that viewers may not be loyal to
a TV channel; rather, they may be loyal to TV programs presented by
different TV channels. Kanal B or other TV managers could examine the
popular shows offered by their close competitors that could help them in
developing their TV programs.
The final managerial implication involves viewer (market)
segmentation and offering TV programs that appeal to the targeted
segments. Because the analyses for liking programs by viewer
demographics identified the TV programs that are preferred by the market
segments, these results could help Kanal B managers develop better
programs to target their specific segments. Similar studies can benefit
other TV channels. Such results could also help TV channel managers to
better segment and match the TV programs with specific target segments.
The authors believe that the strategies developed based on the results
of this branding study could help TV managers improve their
competitiveness and attain increased profitability through increased
market share, as well as maintain sustainable competitiveness. This is
because the results identify the close competitors of TV channels, their
strong and weak areas of their brand, and their TV programs preferred by
market segments, which could be viable information in designing
differentiating strategies in fragmented media market (Yang and Tso,
2007).
Limitations of the Study
The results of this study provided insights about different aspects
of CBBE for Kanal B and their relationships with various demographic
characteristics of their viewers. However, the study has some
limitations; thus, the results must be interpreted with caution. The
first limitation of the study is that the survey was conducted with the
viewers' of Kanal B, which may have biased the responses, and
therefore, the results. A future study could be conducted with a
different sample in order to overcome this inherent bias. The second
limitation deals with the survey instrument, which was developed
specifically for this study and was not tested in other settings. The
authors recommend that the instrument be further tested and refined.
Finally, the measurements of the brand loyalty construct were adapted
from Kim and Kim (2004). Future studies can also include
behavioral-based measurements by asking the respondents how many times
they watch a specific TV Channel or how often they watch a particular
program.
Appendix A: Differences in All CBBE Measures by Demographic Variables
CBBE aspects N, Mean (X), sd t / mean difference
Awareness
Income, Have children <1000TL N=93; X=2.71; (<1000)-(1000-1999)
or not sd=1.10 =0.36
Q1: I am aware of (1000-1999) N=80; (<1000)-(2000-2999)
Kanal B TV station X=2.35; sd=1.15 =0.39
(2000-2999) N=76; (<1000)-(3000-3999)
X=2.32; sd=1.08 =.46
(3000-3999) N=76; (4000+)-(1000-1999)
X=2.25; sd=1.12 =.38
(4000 & up) N=86; (4000+)-(2000-2999)
X=2.73; sd=1.14 =.42
(4000+)-(3000-3999)
=.48
Children N=201; t=-3.03
X=2.31; sd=1.12
No child N=210;
X=2.65; sd=1.14
Perceived Quality
Income, Marital (1000-1999) N=80; (1000-1999)-
Status, Hours of X=2.83; sd=1.05 (4000+) =.39
watching TV
Q3: Kanal B's (4000 & up) N=86;
newscasters look X=2.43; sd=1.17
professional Married N=209; t=2.11
X=2.72; sd=1.11
Single N=202;
X=2.49; sd=1.12
(3-5 hours) N=115; (3-5hrs)-(6-
X=2.76; sd=1.09 8hrs)=.42
(6-8 hours) N=92; (8 hrs or more)-
X=2.34; sd=1.04 (6-8hrs)=.33
(8 or + hrs) N=109;
X=2.67; sd=1.15
Age 15-19 N=67; X=2.66; (15-19)-(30-
sd=1.15 34)=.51
Q5: Kanal B's 20-24 N=70; X=2.61; (15-19)-(45-
newscasters are sd=1.07 49)=.39
knowledgeable on the 25-29 N=55; X=2.60; (20-24)-(30-34)=.47
news they present sd=1.08
30-34 N=56; X=2.14; (25-29)-(30-34)=.46
sd=.96
35-39 N=44; X=2.48; (40-44)-(30-34)=.50
sd=1.09
40-44 N=62; X=2.65;
sd=1.19
45-49 N=57; X=2.26;
sd=1.14
Age, Educ. Income, 20-24 N=70; X=2.83; (20-24)-(25-29)=.54
Hrs of TV sd=1.11
Q7: Kanal B programs 25-29 N=55; X=2.29; (30-34)-(25-29)=.48
are related to the sd=1.10
real world 4-year N=129; (4-year)-
X=2.71; sd=1.10 (master's) =.29
master's N=139;
X=2.42; sd=1.10
(2000-2900) N=76; (2000-2999)-(3000-
X=2.78; sd=1.12 3999) =.38
(3000-3999) N=76;
X=2.39; sd=1.12
(1-2 hours) N=95; (1-2hrs)-(3-5hrs)
X=2.78; sd=1.10 =.353
(3-5 hours) N=115;
X=2.43; sd=1.09
Gender, Age, Hrs Female N=215; t=-2.26
watching TV X=2.41; sd=1.15
Q8: Kanal B's Male N=196; X=2.66;
newscasters respect sd=1.11
their audience while 30-34 N=56; X=2.82; (30-34)-(35-39)=.50
broadcasting sd=1.16
35-39 N=44; X=2.32; (30-34)-(45-49)=.49
sd=1.03
45-49 N=57; X=2.33;
sd=1.21
(3-5 hours) N=115; (3-5hrs)-(8 or
X=2.71; sd=1.15 +hrs) =.41
(8 or + hrs) N=109;
X=2.3; sd=1.13
Brand Loyalty
Age, Marital Status, 15-19 [right arrow] (30-34)-(15-19)=.53
Hrs TV N=67; X=2.40;
sd=1.06
Q12: I feel loyal to 20-24 [right arrow] (30-34)-(20-24)=.41
Kanal B N=70; X=2.51;
sd=1.12
25-29 [right arrow] 30-34)-(25-29)=.42
N=55; X=2.51;
sd=1.12
30-34 [right arrow] (30-34)-(35-39)=.46
N=56; X=2.93;
sd=1.12
35-39 [right arrow]
N=44; X=2.48;
sd=1.17
Married [right t=-2.53
arrow] N=209;
X=2.41; sd=1.07
Single [right
arrow] N=202;
X=2.69; sd=1.14
(1-2hrs) [right (1-2hrs)-(6-8hrs)=
arrow] N=95; .44
X=2.75; sd=1.07
(6-8hrs) [right
arrow] N=92;
X=2.30; sd=1.08
Education High N=143; X=2.38; (4-year)-(high)=.32
sd=1.13
Q14: I am happy with 4-year N=129;
Kanal B's programs X=2.71; sd=1.04
Age 15-19 N=67; X=2.69; (15-19)-(45-49)=.49
sd=1.06
Q15: I do recommend 30-34 N=56; X=2.71; (30-34)-(45-49)=.52
Kanal B to my friends sd=1.15
35-39 N=44; X=2.64; (35-39)-(45-49)=.44
sd=1.18
40-44 N=62; X=2.66; (40-44)-(45-49)=.47
sd=1.05
45-49 [right arrow]
N=57;
X=2.19;sd=1.10
Brand Image
Age, Education 40-44 N=62; (45-49)-(40-44)=.54
X=2.31;sd=1.13
Q21: Kanal B programs 45-49 N=57; X=2.84;
are related to sd=.94
political issues High N=143; X=2.74; (High)-(4-year)=.29
sd=1.09
4-year [right
arrow] N=129;
X=2.45;sd=1.14
Q22: Kanal B programs None
make me feel good
Age, Income 20-24 N=70; X=2.67; (20-24)-(35-39)=.54
sd=1.15
Q23: Kanal B's 25-29 N=55; X=2.73; (25-29)-(35-39)=.59
programs are sd=1.06
consistent with 35-39 N=44; X=2.14 (45-49)-(35-39)=.55
Turkey's image sd=1.15
45-49 N=57; X=2.68; (4000+)-(3000-
sd=1.18 3999)=.35
(3000-3999) N=76;
X=2.29;sd=1.08
(4000 &up) N=86;
X=2.64;sd=1.12
Brand Association
Brand Personality
Hours of watching TV
(3-5hrs) N=115; (1-2hrs)-(6-
X=2.44; sd=1.11 8hrs)=.42
Q24: Kanal B's (6-8hrs) N=92;
programs can be X=2.40; sd=1.13
considered as the
best quality ones
Brand Association--
Organizational
Association
Age, Marital Status 20-24 N=70; X=2.41; (30-34)-(20-24)=.48
sd=1.14
Q28: Kanal B shows 25-29 N=55; X=2.44; (30-34)-(25-29)=.46
up-to-date programs sd=1.03
30-34 N=56; X=2.89; (30-34)-(35-39)=.53
sd=1.09
35-39 N=44; X=2.36;
sd=1.10
Married N=209; t=-2.00
X=2.48; sd=1.16
Single N=202;
X=2.71; sd=1.09
Age 25-29 N=55; X=2.85; (25-29)-(30-34)=.43
sd=1.09
Q30: I watch most of 30-34 N=56; X=2.43;
the Kanal B programs sd=1.12
on a regular basis
Education High N=143; X=2.40; (Masters)-
sd=1.13 (high)=.31
Q31: I consider Kanal Masters N=139;
B as a reliable X=2.71; sd=1.16
source
Income (<1000) N=93; (<1000)-(1000-
X=2.60; sd=1.07 1999)=.38
Q32: I am proud of (1000-1999) N=80; (2000-2999)-(1000-
being Kanal B's X=2.23; sd=1.14 1999) =.45
audience (2000-2999) N=76; (3000-3999)-(1000-
X=2.67; sd=1.07 1999)=.36
(3000-3999) N=76;
X=2.58; sd=1.08
CBBE aspects N, Mean (X), sd Sig.
Awareness
Income, Have children <1000TL N=93; X=2.71; .038 **
or not sd=1.10
Q1: I am aware of (1000-1999) N=80; .025 **
Kanal B TV station X=2.35; sd=1.15
(2000-2999) N=76; .009 ***
X=2.32; sd=1.08
(3000-3999) N=76; .030 **
X=2.25; sd=1.12
(4000 & up) N=86; .020 **
X=2.73; sd=1.14 .007 ***
Children N=201; .003 ***
X=2.31; sd=1.12
No child N=210;
X=2.65; sd=1.14
Perceived Quality
Income, Marital (1000-1999) N=80; .023 **
Status, Hours of X=2.83; sd=1.05
watching TV
Q3: Kanal B's (4000 & up) N=86;
newscasters look X=2.43; sd=1.17
professional Married N=209; .035 **
X=2.72; sd=1.11
Single N=202;
X=2.49; sd=1.12
(3-5 hours) N=115; .007 ***
X=2.76; sd=1.09
(6-8 hours) N=92; .035 **
X=2.34; sd=1.04
(8 or + hrs) N=109;
X=2.67; sd=1.15
Age 15-19 N=67; X=2.66; .01 ***
sd=1.15
Q5:Kanal B's 20-24 N=70; X=2.61; .048 **
newscasters are sd=1.07
knowledgeable on the 25-29 N=55; X=2.60; .017 **
news they present sd=1.08
30-34 N=56; X=2.14; .029 **
sd=.96
35-39 N=44; X=2.48; .014 **
sd=1.09
40-44 N=62; X=2.65;
sd=1.19
45-49 N=57; X=2.26;
sd=1.14
Age, Educ. Income, 20-24 N=70; X=2.83; .008 ***
Hrs of TV sd=1.11
Q7: Kanal B programs 25-29 N=55; X=2.29; .025 **
are related to the sd=1.10
real world 4-year N=129; .035 **
X=2.71; sd=1.10
master's N=139;
X=2.42; sd=1.10
(2000-2900) N=76; .036 **
X=2.78; sd=1.12
(3000-3999) N=76;
X=2.39; sd=1.12
(1-2 hours) N=95; .023 **
X=2.78; sd=1.10
(3-5 hours) N=115;
X=2.43; sd=1.09
Gender, Age, Hrs Female N=215; .024 **
watching TV X=2.41; sd=1.15
Q8: Kanal B's Male N=196; X=2.66;
newscasters respect sd=1.11
their audience while 30-34 N=56; X=2.82; .029 **
broadcasting sd=1.16
35-39 N=44; X=2.32; .023 **
sd=1.03
45-49 N=57; X=2.33;
sd=1.21
(3-5 hours) N=115; .007 ***
X=2.71; sd=1.15
(8 or + hrs) N=109;
X=2.3; sd=1.13
Brand Loyalty
Age, Marital Status, 15-19 [right arrow] .009 ***
Hrs TV N=67; X=2.40;
sd=1.06
Q12: I feel loyal to 20-24 [right arrow] .038 **
Kanal B N=70; X=2.51;
sd=1.12
25-29 [right arrow] .048 **
N=55; X=2.51;
sd=1.12
30-34 [right arrow] .045 **
N=56; X=2.93;
sd=1.12
35-39 [right arrow]
N=44; X=2.48;
sd=1.17
Married [right .012 **
arrow] N=209;
X=2.41; sd=1.07
Single [right
arrow] N=202;
X=2.69; sd=1.14
(1-2hrs) [right .007 ***
arrow] N=95;
X=2.75; sd=1.07
(6-8hrs) [right
arrow] N=92;
X=2.30; sd=1.08
Education High N=143; X=2.38; .016 **
sd=1.13
Q14: I am happy with 4-year N=129;
Kanal B's programs X=2.71; sd=1.04
Age 15-19 N=67; X=2.69; .014 **
sd=1.06
Q15: I do recommend 30-34 N=56; X=2.71; .013 **
Kanal B to my friends sd=1.15
35-39 N=44; X=2.64; .047 **
sd=1.18
40-44 N=62; X=2.66; .022 **
sd=1.05
45-49 [right arrow]
N=57;
X=2.19;sd=1.10
Brand Image
Age, Education 40-44 N=62; .008 ***
X=2.31;sd=1.13
Q21: Kanal B programs 45-49 N=57; X=2.84;
are related to sd=.94
political issues High N=143; X=2.74; .029 **
sd=1.09
4-year [right
arrow] N=129;
X=2.45;sd=1.14
Q22: Kanal B programs None
make me feel good
Age, Income 20-24 N=70; X=2.67; .012 **
sd=1.15
Q23: Kanal B's 25-29 N=55; X=2.73; .008 ***
programs are sd=1.06
consistent with 35-39 N=44; X=2.14 .013 **
Turkey's image sd=1.15
45-49 N=57; X=2.68; .045 **
sd=1.18
(3000-3999) N=76;
X=2.29;sd=1.08
(4000 &up) N=86;
X=2.64;sd=1.12
Brand Association
Brand Personality
Hours of watching TV
(3-5hrs) N=115; .01 ***
X=2.44; sd=1.11
Q24: Kanal B's (6-8hrs) N=92;
programs can be X=2.40; sd=1.13
considered as the
best quality ones
Brand Association--
Organizational
Association
Age, Marital Status 20-24 N=70; X=2.41; .019 **
sd=1.14
Q28: Kanal B shows 25-29 N=55; X=2.44; .034 **
up-to-date programs sd=1.03
30-34 N=56; X=2.89; .021 **
sd=1.09
35-39 N=44; X=2.36;
sd=1.10
Married N=209; .045 **
X=2.48; sd=1.16
Single N=202;
X=2.71; sd=1.09
Age 25-29 N=55; X=2.85; .044 **
sd=1.09
Q30: I watch most of 30-34 N=56; X=2.43;
the Kanal B programs sd=1.12
on a regular basis
Education High N=143; X=2.40; .025 **
sd=1.13
Q31: I consider Kanal Masters N=139;
B as a reliable X=2.71; sd=1.16
source
Income (<1000) N=93; .025 **
X=2.60; sd=1.07
Q32: I am proud of (1000-1999) N=80; .012 **
being Kanal B's X=2.23; sd=1.14
audience (2000-2999) N=76; .045 **
X=2.67; sd=1.07
(3000-3999) N=76;
X=2.58; sd=1.08
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. & K. L. Keller (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand
extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(Jan), 27-41.
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Aaker, D. A. & A. Biel (1992). Building strong brands.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Aaker J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Ball, D. A., Jr., W. H. McCulloch, P. L. Frantz, J.M. Geringer,
& M. S. Minor (2002). International business: the challenge of
global competition. (8th ed.), New York, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Chadha, K. & A. Kavoori (2000). Media imperialism revisited:
Some findings from the Asian case. Media Culture & Society. 22(4),
415-432.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & Y. Kim (2001). Perceptions of branding
among television station managers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 75-91.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & J. Cha (2008). Exploring the antecedents
and effects of brand images for television news: An application of brand
personality construct in a multichannel news environment. The
International Journal on Media Management, 10, 32-45.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & J. Cha (2007). Branding television news
in a multichannel environment: An exploratory study of network news
brand personality. International Journal on Media Management, 9(4),
135-150.
Chung, J.E. (2005). Television program trade in East Asia.
Proceedings of The 2005 Annual AEJMC Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Goldstein, G. B. (2004). A strategic response to media
metamorphoses. Public Relations Quarterly. 49(2), 19-23.
Hurriyet. (1999). The week in perspective. OECD Radio and TV
Report, (March 20). http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=-511403
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing
customer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Kim, W. G. & H.-B. Kim (2004). Measuring customer-based
restaurant brand equity: Investigating the relationship between brand
equity and firms' performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 115-131.
Lin, A. C., D. J. Atkin & R. Abelman (2002). The influence of
network branding on audience affinity for network television. Journal of
Advertising Research, 42(3), 19-32.
McDowell, W. & J. Sutherland (2000). Choice versus chance:
Using brand equity theory to explore TV audience lead-in effects: A case
study. Journal of Media Economics, 13, 233-248.
Netemeyer, R. G., B. Krishnan, C. Pullig, G. Wang, M. Yagci, D.
Dean, J. Ricks & F. Wirth (2004). Developing and validating measures
of facets of customer-based brand-equity. Journal of Business Research,
57(2), 209-224.
Oyedeji, T. A. (2007). The relation between the customer-based
brand equity of media outlets and their media channel credibility: An
exploratory study. International Journal on Media Management, 9(3),
116-125.
Pappu, R., P. G. Quester, & R. W. Cooksey (2006).
Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-origin relationships: Some
empirical evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 696-717.
Ryan, L. (1999). Experts say to be bold, but be careful. Electronic
Media, 18(24), 36.
Shifmann L. G. & L. L. Kanuk (2007). Consumer Behavior. 9th
edition. NJ : Prentice Hall.
Sinha, A., A. J. Nicholas, & A. Gazley (2008). Measuring
customer based brand equity using hierarchical Bayes methodology.
Australasian Marketing Journal. 16(1), 3-19.
Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost
controlled world. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 26-30.
Yang, K. C. C., & T. K. Tso (2007). An exploratory study of
factors influencing audience's attitudes toward imported television
program in Taiwan. The International Journal on Media Management, 9(1),
19-27.
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, & S. Lee (2000). An examination of selected
marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(2), 195-211.
Yoo, B. & N. Donthu (2001). Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Business
Research, 52(1), 1-14.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1998), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and
value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of
Marketing, 52(July), 2-22.
Zeliha Eser, Baskent University
Musa Pinar, Valparaiso University
Tulay Girard, Penn State Altoona
F. Bahar Isin, Baskent University
Table 1: Sample demographic characteristics
Demographic N (%)
Characteristics
Gender
Female 215 52.3
Male 196 47.7
Age
15-19 67 16.3
20-24 70 17
25-29 55 13.4
30-34 56 13.6
35-39 44 10.7
40-44 62 15.1
45-49 57 13.9
Education
High school 143 34.8
College 4 yr. 129 31.4
Masters 139 33.8
Occupation
Engineer 38 9.2
Medical doctor 42 10.2
Housewife 39 9.5
Lawyer 37 9.0
Retired 37 9.0
Blue-collar 37 9.0
Educator 38 9.2
Student 40 9.7
Clerk 39 9.5
Entrepreneur 33 8.0
Other 31 7.5
Income (monthly)
<1,000 TL 93 22.6
1,000-1,999 TL 80 19.4
2,000-2,999 TL 76 18.5
3,000-3,999 TL 76 18.5
4,000 TL and up 86 20.9
Marital Status
Married 209 50.2
Single 202 49.8
Children
Yes 201 48.9
No 210 51.1
Table 2: The CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs well
Perceived Quality Mean Std Dev. Combined %
Q3: Channel B's newscasters look 2.60 1.12 53.5
professional
Q7: Channel B programs are related to 2.59 1.11 52.3
the real world
Q8: Channel B's newscasters respect 2.53 1.14 48.7
their audience while broadcasting
Q5:Channel B's newscasters are 2.50 1.11 49.8
knowledgeable on the news
Brand Loyalty Mean Std Dev. Combined %
Q12: I feel loyal to Channel B 2.55 1.11 52.8
Q15: I do recommend Channel B to my 2.54 1.11 51.5
friends
Q14: I am happy with Channel B's 2.51 1.10 51.1
programs
Brand Image Mean Std Dev. Combined %
Q21: Channel B broadcasts programs 2.57 1.10 51.6
related to political issues
Q22: Channel B programs make me feel 2.53 1.12 50.2
good
Q23: Channel B's programs are 2.50 1.10 49.4
consistent with Turkey's image
Brand Association--Brand Personality Mean Std Dev. Combined %
Q24: Channel B's programs can be 2.54 1.11 53.0
considered as the best quality
Organizational Association Mean Std Dev. Combined %
Q30: I watch most of the Channel B 2.65 1.11 56.7
programs on a regular basis
Q28: Channel B shows up-to-date 2.59 1.14 54.5
programs
Q31: I consider Channel B as a 2.55 1.15 51.8
reliable source
Q32: I am proud of being Channel B's 2.51 1.10 52.3
audience
Table 3: Differences test results in liking of programs
Mean Std Mean Sig.
dev. diff.
Age by health
15-19 2.82 1.1
25-29 2.33 1.2 .494 .014
35-39 2.34 1.1 .480 .024
Age by documentary
25-29 2.85 1.18
15-19 2.40 1.18 .452 .026
20-24 2.43 1.08 .426 .034
30-34 2.36 .97 .462 .029
40-44 2.42 1.08 .435 .035
Age by educational
45-49 2.67 1.18
30-34 2.25 .99 .417 .045
Income by debate
1,000-1,999 TL 2.35
2,000-2,999 TL 2.72 1.18 -.374 .039
3,000-3,999 TL 2.72 1.18 -.374 .039
Marital status by
educational
Married 2.63 1.12
Single 2.40 1.13 .23 .034
Children by Children
programs
Have children 2.69 1.12
Do not have children 2.47 1.07 .22 .043
Table 4: Regression results of the subscribers'
likings of the programs
Program Regression Equation Sig.
Health Liking = 2.75 -.097 (Age) F=3.87, p=.05 **
Educational Liking = 2.86 -.105 F=4.53, p=.034 **
(Marital Status)
Children Liking = 3.24 -.123 (Hours F=5.23, p=.006 ***
of watching TV) -.108 (Have
Children or not)
** significant at p [less than or equal to] .05;
*** significant at p [less than or equal to] .01
Table 5 : Differences in CBBE areas by demographics that Kanal B
performs well
Awareness Significant Demographics
Q1: I am aware of Kanal B TV Income, Have children or not
station
Perceived Quality Significant Demographics
Q3: Kanal B's newscasters look Income, Marital Status, Hrs
professional watching TV
Q5: Kanal B's newscasters are Age
knowledgeable on the news they
present
Q7: Kanal B programs are related Age, Education, Income, Hrs
to the real world watching TV
Q8: Kanal B's newscasters respect Gender, Age, Hrs. of watching TV
their audience while broadcasting
Brand Loyalty Significant Demographics
Q12: I feel loyal to Kanal B Age, Marital Status, Hours of
watching TV
Q14: I am happy with Kanal B's Education
programs
Q15: I do recommend Kanal B to my Age
friends
Brand Image Significant Demographics
Q21: Kanal B broadcasts programs Age, Education
related to political issues
Q22: Kanal B programs make me None
feel good
Q23: Kanal B's programs are Age, Income
consistent with Turkey's image
Brand Association--Brand Significant Demographics
Personality
Q24: Kanal B's programs can be Hours of watching TV
considered as the best quality
ones
Brand Association--Organizational Significant Demographics
Association
Q28: Kanal B shows up-to-date Age, Marital Status
programs
Q30: I watch most of the Kanal B Age
programs on a regular basis
Q31: I consider Kanal B as a Education
reliable source
Q32: I am proud of being Kanal Income
B's audience
